Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CANNOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

EAST SURREY GAS BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PATENTS AND REGISTERED DESIGNS (FEES).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider authorising a suspension of fees for patents and registered designs, which are temporarily rendered of little or no value on account of the Limitation of Supplies Order or the Concentration of Industry Scheme?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I do not regard this proposal as practicable. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) on 4th February, Section 18 of the Patents and Designs Act allows a patentee who has suffered loss as such by reason of hostilities to apply to the Court for an extension of the term of his patent. Where such an extension is granted, no renewal fees are charged. This provision should afford some relief in the circumstances envisaged in the Question.

Sir H. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think it rather hard luck that people who have no income coming in should have to go on paying fees to preserve their rights, when they have been deprived of a living by my right hon. Friend's own action?

Mr. Lyttelton: If they think that the patent is no use to them, they should not use it.

Sir H. Williams: I think my right hon. Friend has not grasped the point. People are prevented by him from using their patents, yet his Department goes on collecting fees from them for something which he will not let them use,

PRINTING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Hammersley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to concentrate production in the printing industry?

Mr. Lyttelton: For the reasons explained by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment on 13th May, no 5uch steps are being taken.

Mr. Hammersley: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the very large quantities of printed matter which are sent out each week by the big stores? Does he appreciate that this unnecessary printing is a great waste of our shipping space, and that it is very subversive to the savings campaign?

Mr. Lyttelton: The control of paper is not a matter for my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE ACT.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the income limit for persons eligible to claim immediate assistance in respect of property and chattels, destroyed or damaged through enemy action, has been recently abolished or raised, and if so, to what figure; and what are the conditions attached to the claiming of such assistance?

Mr. Lyttelton: The income limit has been abolished, and any one person can now apply to the Assistance Board if he requires assistance to meet immediate needs of essential clothing, furniture, household effects or tools. Details of the arrangements for advance payments for war damage to private chattels are set out in Board of Trade Notice 123, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Thorne: Where can people get the forms upon which to apply for this concession?

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give as much publicity as possible to the fact that the income limit has been abolished, as it does not seem to be known sometimes, even among the officials who are advising applicants?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (SECONDHAND ENGINES).

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware that profiteering is taking place in the sale of second-hand engines for ships, due to the great demand; that ships are being delayed in port on this account; and is he satisfied that he has adequate powers, under the Defence Regulations, to requisition engines at the prewar market price, with a view to stopping the profiteering that is taking place, and the consequent avoidance of delay in refitting ships?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to this matter. There was one—and, so far as I know, only one— case in which a ship may have been held up because of discussion as to whether the power of requisitioning was applicable. I am satisfied that requisitioning is applicable in any case to prevent delay, and in future. if the need arises, the power to requisition will be used.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

NORTHERN IRELAND (STATISTICS).

Captain John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War the percentage of men of military age serving in His Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland, and the comparable figure for Great Britain?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): I regret that the required information is not available.

Captain Dugdale: Is the information being withheld, or is it not available?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir, it is not being withheld; the difficulty is to obtain accurate information. Many people go from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland and enlist there, because they cannot do so in Southern Ireland and men from

Northern Ireland sometimes enlist in this country.

FILMS.

Captain Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any rule preventing the private showing of films to troops within a certain distance of any public cinema?

Captain Margesson: The contracts under which the War Office and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes hire films from the trade provide that they should not be shown within two miles of a public cinema. No restrictions are, of course, placed on the exhibition of films owned by the War Office or Ministry of Information or of films hired from film libraries available to the ordinary public.

Captain Dugdale: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend make this perfectly clear to the military authorities, because I think many of them are under a misapprehension on the point?

Captain Margesson: Certainly. If there is any doubt, perhaps the Answer I have given to-day will clear the matter up.

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that mechanical transport instructors in the Auxiliary Territorial Service hold the same rank and receive the same pay as the latest-joined recruit whom they instruct; and whether he will reconsider this system, which is not good for discipline or fair to the instructors?

Captain Margesson: Instructors at the training centre for motor transport companies of the Auxiliary Territorial Service are either section-leaders or sub-leaders. In addition, a certain number of drivers, some of whom may be chief volunteers, may act as assistant instructors. I am not aware that this system gives rise to any difficulties in practice.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that it is contrary to all precedent and usage to have instructors and recruits on the same basis both of rank and of pay, as is the case in this Service?

Captain Margesson: On the figures I have, I do not think there are many in that position. As I said, I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen.

OFFICERS' OUTFIT ALLOWANCE.

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding officers' outfit allowance?

Captain Margesson: I have given this question very careful consideration, and have had the advantage of discussing it with Members from all sides of the House. Hon. Members are aware that the existing outfit allowance is mainly based upon an official price list, which has been accepted, through their trade organisations, by tailors throughout the country; and I would emphasise that uniforms of War Office standard materials can, in fact, be obtained at these prices. I am aware that, in some cases, tailors will quote higher prices for uniforms made up in their own materials, and will not quote the official price for uniforms made up in standard materials unless specifically asked to do so by the customer. Newly-commissioned officers, therefore, should insist, in their own interests, upon seeing the official price-list which has been agreed between the War Office and the trade organisations of the tailoring industry.
I have drawn attention to this aspect of the question because it is clear to me that officers are not always aware of their rights in the matter. On the general question, however, I realise that officers, even so, cannot always buy in the cheapest market, and that some articles which are not included in the list of essential articles of uniform are, nevertheless, often bought by officers. For these reasons, and to ease the position of newly-joined officers generally, I propose to increase the outfit allowance from £30 to £35, with effect from 1st January last.

Colonel Evans: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that answer, might I ask whether the camp kit will be issued free of charge to officers, in addition to the allowance of £ 35? Will he publish the official price list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, for the guidance of all concerned?

Captain Margesson: I see no objection to publishing the official price list. As a matter of fact, every man leaving an Officer Cadets Training Unit is provided with that list.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not perfectly clear that if a man or a number of men persist

day after day and hour after hour, they can get what they want?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is the tailor bound to supply the articles at the official price?

Captain Margesson: Yes, they have agreed to do it.

Mr. Bellenger: Is dating the concession from 1st January the best that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can do? Is not that a rather arbitrary date? As there were many officers who obtained their commissions before then, cannot he date the concession from the date suggested by the deputation, to the beginning of the war?

Captain Margesson: I have given that matter very careful consideration, and, have looked at it from all points and angles, and I do not think I can do better than to date the concession from 1st January.

WELFARE FACILITIES.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the lack of social amenities, such as accommodation for recreation and refreshment, for the troops in a certain place of which he has been informed, and the hardship caused by the only hotel being reserved for officers' billets; and whether he will arrange for this state of affairs to be remedied?

Captain Margesson: So far as I am aware, no complaints have been received that the facilities for recreation and refreshment at the place to which ray hon. Friend refers are inadequate, but I am making further inquiries, and will communicate with him as soon as possible.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will remove the anomaly of non-payment of benefit in respect of a soldier's illegitimate child which is solely dependent upon him and in respect of whom benefit was paid when the soldier was in receipt of unemployment benefit before enlistment?

Captain Margesson: In the great majority of cases, a soldier who before enlistment was eligible for unemployment benefit in respect of an illegitimate child, would be eligible for family or dependants' allowance from Army funds


in respect of the child. If my hon. Friend will let me know the type of case in which he considers that an anomaly arises, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Mathers: I will certainly give my right hon. and gallant Friend the information. But is it not possible for the War Office to adopt the policy that wherever unemployment benefit or any other benefit accrues, it shall accrue in respect of soldiers who have enlisted?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me look into the type of case he has in mind.

COMPASSIONATE LEAVE (FREE RAILWAY WARRANTS).

Captain Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the number of serving soldiers whose homes are being destroyed in air raids, he will consider permitting commanding officers to increase the number of free railway warrants that they are allowed to issue to troops proceeding on compassionate leave?

Captain Margesson: Commanding officers already have authority to issue free warrants to all soldiers and officers below field rank who are granted compassionate leave for the purpose of visiting their homes when these have been seriously damaged or relatives have been seriously injured as a result of enemy action. These free warrants are additional to the normal entitlement of two free leave warrants a year.

Captain Dugdale: Is it the fact that a man may get free warrants on two separate occasions if his home has been bombed twice?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir; if a soldier is unlucky enough to have his home bombed twice or three times, he gets his free warrant on each occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with matters relating to British prisoners of war, a British agent has been appointed to work from Geneva in co-operation with the International Red Cross?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir. This question was recently raised by the British Red Cross Society with the International Red Cross Committee, and, after careful consideration, it was decided that such an appointment was unnecessary.

Miss Ward: Was this decision taken by agreement with Mr. Adams, who has been recently appointed to deal with that particular aspect of the matter?

Captain Margesson: I could not say that offhand; but this case, which was nicely balanced, was argued out very carefully, and it was thought best, in the main, to leave things as they are.

Sir William Davison: Was any reason given by the International Red Cross as to why the British Red Cross, or any other national Red Cross, should not have a representative—not necessarily a national of the country concerned—at Geneva, to inform them as to the position?

Captain Margesson: As I have said, the matter was looked at very carefully; and it was thought that the interests of the British Red Cross as a whole would best be served by relying on the International Red Cross.

Mr. McGovern: If the Minister decided to send representatives, would he not require three—one from each of the political parties?

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that while the British Red Cross announced in December last, that relations could send personal parcels of tobacco or cigarettes to prisoners of war, very few of these parcels have been received; and whether or not these parcels have since been banned by the Red Cross as not really necessary?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Allan Chapman): I have been asked to reply. I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to parcels of tobacco and cigarettes which may be sent by relatives through firms holding a special permit from the Censorship Department. This scheme was introduced at the end of November, 1940. The British Red Cross Society is not concerned with or responsible for it. I am aware that these parcels have suffered delay owing to transport difficulties. These difficulties are, however, gradually being overcome


and parcels are now arriving in the camps in Germany in large numbers. I have no reason to believe that these tobacco parcels are not among them.

Sir A. Knox: So that relatives can continue to send these parcels as before?

Mr. Chapman: Through the firms holding permits only.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Postmaster-General, whether he has yet been able to arrange for the conveyance by air-mail, between Lisbon and Germany, of correspondence with prisoners of war in Germany; and what is now the average time taken by letters in transit from Britain to Germany, and vice versa?

Mr. Chapman: The reciprocal conveyance of prisoner of war letter mail between Germany and the United Kingdom by the German and British air services has been agreed in principle, and a decision is awaited from the. German Government as to the date on which the scheme shall be introduced whereby letters to and from British prisoners in Germany will be carried by air between Lisbon and Germany. Meanwhile, all letters and cards from British prisoners in Germany are brought by air from Lisbon to this country, and the time taken in transit is, generally, two to three weeks. It is assumed that letters sent by air mail from this country to Germany take about the same time to reach Germany. Letters sent by sea take several weeks longer.

Sir A. Knox: When that reform starts what will be the estimated time for the passage of letters between England and prisoners of war in Germany?

Mr. Chapman: I would rather not commit my right hon. Friend. It is a matter for speculation at present. We must see how the thing works before we can make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he can state for a date in each three months, since March, 1939, the number of those serving sentences as conscientious objectors, and the varying length of the sentences being served;
(2) whether he can state, for a date in each three months since March, 1939, the location of civil prisons; the number of males confined therein, distinguishing between those claiming to be conscientious objectors and others; and how many of the former are serving a second or third sentence under the Military Training and the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): As the reply involves a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Conscientious objection is not a criminal offence, and no one can be imprisoned on account of it The following table for the dates specified gives particulars of (a). the total number of males confined in Scottish prisons, (b) number confined for offences under the National Service Acts or pending appearance before a Medical Board, and (c) number confined for offences against military discipline alleged to have been committed on conscientious grounds:


Date.
A
B
C


1st April, 1939 
1,027
—
—


1st July, 1939 
1,000
—
—


1st October, 1939
809
—
—


1st January, 1940
817
—
—


1st April, 1940 
789
—
—


1st July, 1940 
1,143
6
1


1st October, 1940
914
5
1


1st January, 1941
788
5
2


1st April, 1941 
842
3
2

The sentences referred to under (b) varied between 10 and 30 days' imprisonment and under (c) between three months' and one year's hard labour. No person is serving a second or third sentence under the National Service Acts. Civil prisons in Scotland are situated at Aberdeen, Dumfries, Edinburgh, Barlinnie (Glasgow), Duke Street (Glasgow), Greenock, Inverness, Kirkwall, Perth and Peterhead. A civil prison at Lerwick was discontinued on the 30th September, 1940. There are, in addition, a number of legalised police cells the figures for which are not included in the table above.

CLASSIFICATION OF AREAS.

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will examine afresh the whole question of the present


artificial boundaries between vulnerable, neutral and evacuation areas, with a view to a revision of the existing boundaries on lines more in accordance with recent experiences?

Mr. Johnston: Classification of areas for the purposes of the Government evacuation scheme is constantly under review in consultation with the Service and other authorities concerned, and full account has been and will continue to be taken of the recent experiences referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

Major Lloyd: In view of the fact that the public, and indeed, many of the local authorities, have no longer any confidence in the present boundaries, which were fixed before the war, and in view of the difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman has to contend in advising them as a result of his statement, will he consider abolishing them altogether in the light of the facts?

Mr. Johnston: That is an exceedingly difficult question to answer, and the balance of advantages, I think, is in favour of having, in the main outline, the scheme which has hitherto existed.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of his present knowledge, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the present boundaries?

Mr. Johnston: I have answered that they are continually under review.

POLICE (FIRE FIGHTING).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of cases during air raids, where policemen have found themselves handicapped by the absence of training in the use of fire fighting appliances, he will arrange for all police personnel being provided with such training?

Mr. Johnston: No case of the kind referred to has been brought to my notice, but, if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any instance he has in mind, I will be glad to look into it. In common with all citizens, the police are expected to deal with incendiary bombs so far as their duties permit, and all members of Scottish Police Forces have been trained in methods of combating them. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that the use of Fire Brigade appliances is no part of normal police duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLIES.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the shortage of coal in the Midlands is steadily growing more acute; and will he take steps to get released from the Army men needed in the mines?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am aware of the shortage in several areas. Steps are being taken in order to increase the production as rapidly as possible. The suggestion made by the hon. Member is not being overlooked and with other special measures is receiving the consideration of the various Departments concerned.

Mr. Thorne: Is the shortage of coal due to the fact that there are not sufficient engine-men and others to work down the pits?

Mr. Grenfell: There are not sufficient men available for all the operations of coal-getting this summer, and the question of getting men back to the mines is receiving consideration.

Sir W. Davison: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that not only in the Midlands, but in many towns and districts in the South of England, there is a great shortage of coal which has persisted for many months, and that attention has been drawn to it?

Mr. Grenfell: Attention has been drawn to it definitely, and attention has been given to it, and the hon. Member cannot say that there is a great shortage in all areas. There are areas where there are difficulties. We heard of them in the past, and we have given the explanation, but there has been no breakdown, and I am much more concerned about the future than the past

Mr. T. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the coal merchants are complaining that they have not sufficient labour to deal with the adequate distribution of coal?

Mr. Grenfell: There is a shortage of labour both for production and distribution, and the matter is receiving attention.

Mr. Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman take the House fully into his confidence in this matter, if necessary in Secret Session, because we desire to know the prospective coal situation?

Mr. Grenfell: I can assure the House that the earliest opportunity will be taken to discuss the prospects of coal supply very fully in this House.

Mr. Hannah: Will the Minister carefully consider cases where skilled miners now in the Army would probably be better employed in the national interest in coal mining?

Mr. Grenfell: I hope the remarks of my hon. Friend will be read by other Departments too.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Secretary for Mines invite Frank Hodges back to produce coal, as he would be doing a much better job than he is doing at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

WHOLEMEAL BREAD.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the reasons for the delay in making available to consumers, both the reinforced white flour bread and the whole meal loaf; and when these commodities will be freely available to the general public?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): Delay in the production of fortified white flour has been due to a mechanical breakdown, now remedied. Distribution will commence in about a fortnight's time but, owing to the heavy reserve stocks of unfortified flour, it will be a matter of some months before all white bread is fortified. Bread made from National Wheat meal is becoming generally available to meet the growing demand for this loaf. Where difficulties occur in consumers obtaining this type of bread, my Department will be pleased to advise as to a source of supply.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Would we not save 1,000,000 tons of shipping if we went over to whole meal bread and did our own milling in this country?

BOMBED AREAS (RATIONS).

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are taken to ensure that the inhabitants of badly bombed districts receive, if necessary, some increase over normal rationing.

Major Lloyd George: According to the needs of the situation, emergency feeding centres are opened and mobile canteens and food convoys sent into the area in addition to the provision of food and rest centres by the public assistance authority. When necessary food rationing may be temporarily suspended.

FRUIT PRESERVATION.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that inadequate supplies of sugar will involve a serious waste of home-grown fruit which might have been used for the making of jam; and whether he will officially encourage the more general use of substitutes, such as saccharine or sax in, which have the advantage of containing no fattening qualities, by all who consume tea and coffee, so that our limited supplies of sugar can be used for the making of jam?

Major Lloyd George: Adequate supplies of sugar are available for fruit preservation to jam manufacturers, canners and fruit preservation centres. The possibility of making a special allowance of sugar to householders when the stone fruit crop is available will be considered in the light of the supply position. The public is already aware that saccharine is available for sweetening tea and coffee.

Major Adams: Is there any difficulty about the raw materials of these substitutes? The point of the Question was whether my hon. and gallant Friend will officially encourage the use of these substitutes.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot say that, but the fact is that substitutes are available at the present time, if people wish to take them instead of sugar and use sugar for other purposes, but I cannot officially encourage their use.

Major Adams: Would it not be a greater economy to use substitutes, so that sugar could be made available for the manufacture of jam?

Major Lloyd George: Sugar has certain qualities which these substitutes have not.

Mr. Thorne: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommends the use of saccharine, will he prevent the price from jumping up?

HERRINGS.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied that the Scottish fishermen will be able to secure and land the incoming early summer herring; and whether he has plans for rendering available the transport for distributing the usual gluts of early herring quickly to inland districts?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to both parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Robertson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman taking steps to ensure that surplus herrings are frozen and stored in the millions of vacant cubic feet of cold storage so that feast and famine conditions can be avoided?

Major Lloyd George: We are making arrangements to preserve the herrings and storage accommodation will be provided.

SPECULATION.

Captain Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the communication addressed to him by a Nottingham citizen who first brought to the notice of the chairman of the North Midland Food Investigation Committee the case of profiteering in tinned marmalade which was at once investigated by him and reported on with renewed recommendations; and whether, in view of the established facts, he is now prepared to make a further statement thereupon?

Major Lloyd George: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.

Captain Lyons: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that public opinion accepts the statements made by the chairman of that committee and the facts as he showed them; and, in view of the very inconsistent and conflicting statements that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, will he take the House into his confidence and tell us why this committee is being side-tracked?

Major Lloyd George: I have already informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman on so many occasions that I have almost despaired of his listening to anything I say. If the public accept the facts, all I

can say is that the public is accepting statements that are not correct.

Captain Lyons: Arising out of the very unsatisfactory position, and owing to the fact that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said I did not accept is not correct, I shall raise the whole matter on the Adjournment on the first available day, and ask that the report of the committee should be presented to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAKING TRADE (WAGES).

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Minister of Labour whether an application has been made to the appropriate trade board by the operatives of the Bakers and Confectioners' Trade Union for an increase in wages; and will the board have regard to the higher wages now paid in Scotland in similar conditions?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I understand that the Baking Trade Board (England and Wales) have an application for an advance of wages under consideration, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that no relevant consideration will be overlooked.

Mr. Banfield: Seeing that the price of bread is the same in Scotland as in England, what justification is there for bakers' wages in England and Wales being 10s. a week less than in Scotland?

Mr. Assheton: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

MESSENGER YOUTHS.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the air-raid precautions messenger service youths employed by local authorities perform arduous and dangerous duties; and will he arrange for them to be issued with steel helmets and civilian service respirators?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I am aware of the valuable services rendered by the youths who act as Civil Defence messengers, and arrangements have been made to secure that members of the authorised establishment receive appropriate equipment as suggested by my hon. Friend. My right hon.


Friend is examining the sufficiency of the establishment with a view to making increases in particular areas as dictated by experience.

Mr. Culverwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bristol Corporation, finding that their authorised establishment was not sufficient to cope with difficulties when communications broke down, recruited extra messengers who had to go out in a blitz without steel helmets or respirators? Would my hon. Friend hasten the decision about authorising an issue of helmets for these extra recruits?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly, Sir.

DETENTIONS.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Home Secretary how many cases have been considered by the Committee set up by him to deal with cases of citizens of friendly countries detained under a deportation order; how many cases await hearing; and in how many cases has release from detention been granted?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The Committee appointed to advise my right hon. Friend on the cases of non-enemy aliens detained under Article 12(5A) of the Aliens Order has so far considered 316 of the cases referred to it. Fourteen further cases await hearing. Of the cases considered by the Committee, the release of 114 persons has been authorised. In addition my right hon. Friend has authorised the release of 276 detainees without reference to the Committee.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Does my hon. Friend really think the situation is satisfactory and quite fair to these people? It is quite true that they have the right to appear before the Committee, but is it not the case that they are not told what charges are to be brought against them? It is a difficult thing for a man to answer a charge if he does not know the nature of the charge.

Mr. Peake: I have examined many transcripts of proceedings before the Committee and invariably it is the practice of the Committee to put to the detained person facts which are known to his detriment.

FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of

the anxiety caused to local authorities in industrial areas by the lack of knowledge or confusion of ideas concerning the arrangements for fire-bomb watching and fire-bomb fighting, made by firms in their area; and whether he will see that firms furnish local authorities with details of their schemes, so that effective co-ordination may be understood, and be capable of adaptation for all or any emergencies?

Mr. Mabane: My right hon. Friend has already arranged that Government Departments, which are appropriate authorities under Article 7 of the Business Premises Order, should advise the Regional Commissioners of the approval of fire-prevention arrangements proposed by firms with which they are concerned. My right hon. Friend is not clear that any sufficient advantage would accrue to compensate for the additional labour involved if this information was passed on to local authorities, but he will consider the matter further if my hon. Friend will give particulars of the respects in which he has found the present arrangements defective.

Mr. Walkden: I shall be glad to do so.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether he is considering steps to oblige property owners to share the executive and financial responsibility for the fire watching of their premises; and also to enforce upon the occupiers of business premises a stricter fulfilment of the obligation already nominally entailed upon them to make adequate arrangements in this matter?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 15th May to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). While my right hon. Friend is always ready to consider ways in which fire-prevention arrangements can be improved, he sees no reason, after fully considering the possible alternatives, for departing from the course at present adopted, of placing obligations on the occupier rather than on the owner and of placing responsibility for enforcement of the Regulations on the appropriate authorities concerned.

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in fact many occupiers clear off to the country at night without having made any arrangements, and that none of the people doing duty on the streets know to whom to apply if they wish to enter a building?

Mr. Mabane: If occupiers do that, they are breaking the law.

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend instruct local authorities to initiate prosecutions without delay? It is an example that is needed.

ORGANISATION.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that air attack inevitably creates a number of novel problems, affecting the movement, housing and feeding of the people, the effective solution of which demands a staff and line organisation on a national and regional basis, as in the case of fire, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Minister of Civil Defence or make such other appropriate changes in the national and regional organisation as he thinks fit so that the courage of the people and the devotion of officials and voluntary workers is worthily matched and reinforced?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): His Majesty's Government are naturally fully alive to the new problems created by air attack, and we do not hesitate to make changes in the national, regional and local organisation of Civil Defence to meet new conditions. But I do not consider that a radical change in the present chain of responsibility is necessary or desirable in present circumstances.

Mr. Lindsay: Without asking for any definite proposal, do I understand that the Prime Minister has not a word to say on this subject?

The Prime Minister: I hope I have not yet got to my last word.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

MUNITION FACTORIES (HOURS).

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Supply what percentage of factories on war munition making are working a full 24 hours' day?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Conditions vary so greatly from time to time and place to place, having regard to enemy action and other considerations, that I doubt whether any reply would give an accurate picture. Moreover, the compilation would require

a very large expenditure of effort in statistical research.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Are factories getting all the coal they require to keep them going?

Mr. Macmillan: That is not a question for me.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that industry as a whole is organised on a total war basis?

Mr. Macmillan: That is a question that we shall be discussing in the near future. My right hon. Friend is never wholly satisfied. I should describe his condition as one of qualified optimism.

ARMY BOOTS (WEARING TESTS).

Sir R. Clarry: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has any statement to make on a recent Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which deals with a suggested process for the treatment of Army leather boots reputed to give them an extended life and effect an economy in expenditure?

Mr. Macmillan: The Select Committee recommended a more extended wearing test than that which had been carried out, and also agreed that it was desirable to test the boots under all conditions, both summer and winter. Arrangements have been made with the War Office to conduct wearing tests this summer. In addition to the evidence supplied by wearing tests on Army boots, it is necessary also to consider any factors which may in any degree affect efficiency. All these factors will be borne in mind in connection with the tests which are now being undertaken, and a report will be submitted to the Select Committee as soon as possible.

Sir R. Clarry: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the claims for this process are sustained, very great economies will be affected financially and a quantity of leather will be available for other purposes? Speed is essential in dealing with this matter.

Mr. Macmillan: Claims are often made by inventors, and it is necessary to establish them.

Mr. A. Edwards: When the Minister says, "under all conditions," does it mean that he wants to test them under both war and peace conditions, and, if so, is that the reason for the delay?

Oral Answers to Questions — DAMAGED HISTORICAL BUILDINGS, LONDON (INFORMATION).

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Minister of Information what is the policy underlying the deliberate non-publication of news revealing injury to beautiful and historic buildings in London; and whether he is aware that such publication, so far from causing despondency, would pro mote the resolution of the British people to attain final and complete victory?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): Reference to any individual site recently injured by air bombardment is forbidden on security grounds. It is the practice to relax this rule in the case of some buildings of historic or national importance within a short time of the event.

Major Adams: But in view of official silence on this matter, and as neighbouring objectives have been hit, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the broken Crusaders in Temple Church do not appeal to his imagination?

Mr. Nicolson: Certainly, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: What grounds for security are there in publishing at an early moment the fact that the Houses of Parliament have been damaged and declining information about other buildings? What is the policy? Is it right or wrong?

Mr. Nicolson: It is not a question of policy; it is a question of common sense. We wish to give just as much information as we possibly can without giving information to the enemy.

Sir H. Williams: What common sense is there in telling the Germans where they have dropped bombs?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRACTS (FRUSTRATION).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the recommendations of the Lord Chancellor's Law Revision Committee (Cmd. 6009) on the doctrine of frustration; and whether, in view of the recommendations of this Committee that an appropriate proportion of a premium on an unexpired frustrated policy should be

refunded, he will take steps to put this recommendation into force?

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): Legislation on the lines of this Report was, as was stated to the House, in contemplation when war broke out. Since then legislation has been directed to war problems, and some of this legislation— e.g., the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act—dealt with a somewhat similar issue to that raised by frustration. The Committee's proposals, if adopted, would effect a general alteration in the Common Law. The Government are, however, reconsidering the matter to see whether it would be right to submit a Bill to Parliament on the lines of the Committee's Report. The recommendations are not, of course, confined to contracts of insurance and undoubtedly require reconsideration in the light of the interference with contracts which war conditions bring about.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITIA CAMPS (JUDGE'S REPORT).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Chancery Judge's report on the militia camps has been received", he proposes to compensate for loss of employment and reinstate in other suitable work those persons who first drew attention to the extravagance and waste in camp construction, and who, in consequence, were either dismissed or have failed to obtain employment of a similar nature since?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that persons have been dismissed for drawing attention to extravagance and waste. Nor is there anything in the Judge's report to support this view. On the contrary in the letter, under cover of which he sent me his report, he said:
The question of 'victimisation' of the persons making the charges did not appear to me to lie within my terms of reference; therefore I did not deal with it in my Report.
But it is a question upon which there has, I believe, been some public anxiety. I necessarily had to consider it as an incident of the charges that were made and am quite satisfied that there is no ground for the suggestion that there has been any victimisation whatever.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Prime Minister have examined the document which I hold in my hand and which concerns the dismissal of one of these persons, Major ReidKellett, if I send it to him?

The Prime Minister: Any communications which the hon. Gentleman has to make to the Government will be freely received.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister aware that as a result of the representations made by one of these persons, there was an alteration in the War Office specification which led to a great saving in the construction of the camp, and that it was on account of the report then submitted that the man lost his work?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of evidence which has not yet been examined?

The Prime Minister: This was referred to the Judge, and all the evidence available at the time—and this agitation has been going on for a long time—was placed before him, and I have confidence in his measured opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION AND IMPORT EXECUTIVES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister whether he has changed the composition of the Production Executive and Import Executive, in view of the fact that the Minister of Aircraft Production is not now a member of the War Cabinet; and whether the Minister of Shipping and Transport is to be a member of the Import Executive?

Mr. Granville: asked the Prime Minister what is the present composition of the Production Executive Committee; which Minister presides over its meetings; and whether this Executive Committee is responsible to the Supply Section of the Defence Committee or to the War Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friends to my statement in the House on 22nd January on the subject of the Production and Import Executives. There have been no changes in their composition except that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production now fills the place on both Executives held by his predecessor in that office and that the Minister of War Transport has been appointed a member of the Import Executive. Both Executives remain responsible to the War Cabinet.

Mr. Granville: In order to avoid the tragedy of "too late and too little" in this vast question of mechanisation, will the Prime Minister now place war production and priorities under single control and direction, and will he also take an opportunity of reading a leader in to-day's "Times" on this question?

The Prime Minister: I was not really aware that my hon. Friend should prescribe to me my light reading in the morning. I may say that on several occasions I have given to the House explanations of the flexible machinery which we have for conducting the war at the present time, and on a suitable occasion I should be prepared to add to the statements I have made, but I do not contemplate any decisive changes in policy, at any rate at the present time.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Prime Minister refuse to read the "Times" articles?

The Prime Minister: Not when I agree with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (CONSCRIPTION).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider the question of conscription for Northern Ireland; and whether he can make any statement about it?

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the strong feeling in Ulster in favour of conscription, he will consider the desirability of introducing this measure?

Mr. Harland: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will reconsider the policy of not applying military conscription to Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that the people of Northern Ireland are in favour of this course?

The Prime Minister: This question has for some time past engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement about it on the first Sitting Day after this week.

Sir A. Somerville: Does not my right hon. Friend remember that the people of Northern Ireland regard this negative policy up to the present as a slight on


their patriotism, and also that one frightful result of it is that the good men volunteer while the less good men get their jobs?

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the reason conscription was not originally applied in Northern Ireland was that strong representations were made to the British Government by Mr. De Valera against it, and that Mr. De Valera stated that if it were imposed, it would lead to strong opposition from the minority in Northern Ireland? Is not the present time, when people of all classes and parties in Northern Ireland are mercilessly bombed, a good opportunity for reconsidering the whole matter?

The Prime Minister: The facts are, I believe, as stated by my right hon. Friend, but I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the whole subject shortly.

Mr. Buchanan: Seeing that the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State did make representation, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that before he makes any statement on the matter, any new representations which Mr. de Valera may make will be considered also?

The Prime Minister: Representations which reach His Majesty's Government from any quarter are always considered.

Professor Savory: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the Cabinet of Northern Ireland were unanimous in 1939 in pressing that conscription should be applied to Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUDOLF HESS.

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether it has yet been established whether the projected visit of the Deputy Fuehrer of the Reich to the Duke of Hamilton was planned with the connivance and support of the German Government?

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject, and I am not at all sure when I shall be.

Major Adams: While I appreciate the necessity for discretion on the part of my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether the Government have actively in mind the

possibility that the whole stunt may be a common or garden plant, and further will my right hon. Friend discourage sections of the Press from any renewal of their nauseating rhapsodies on this bloodstained crook?

The Prime Minister: Certainly I do not feel that I ought to detract in any way from the vehemence of the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not better that the Germans should be left guessing in this matter, and that we should not satisfy their idle curiosity, or their not so idle curiosity?

Mr. Maxton: Does the Prime Minister know that during the week-end two Ministers made important statements on this subject, giving a full description why this man is here, why he came, and all the rest of it? Will the right hon. Gentleman restrain individual Ministers from making statements until a statement can be made that is authoritatively made on behalf of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that the statements which were made over the week-end commanded general approval. It is one thing that statements of that kind should be made, and another that I should, as it were, sum up on behalf of the Government the results of all the inquiries we are making and ail the information that comes to our hands.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister take notice that there has been very great dissatisfaction at the line taken in the Press when describing this man's very delicate appetite and the means taken to satisfy it, because people believe that many of those in concentration camps have just as delicate appetites and are not satisfied as this man has been?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but as far as I am at present advised, he is being treated as a prisoner of war, and will receive appropriate treatment.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity of allaying public anxiety on one point in this affair, namely, the statement made in some newspapers that a citizen of this country received a private letter from Hess in Germany? Will the Prime Minister make a statement about that?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the Duke of Hamilton. I have suggested that a Question should be put on the Order Paper for the Third Sitting Day, and it will be answered by the Secretary of State for Air, under whose authority the noble Duke is serving.

Major Adams: As to the Press, did my right hon. Friend notice that the "Times" described this creature as an idealist?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I can indulge in this retrospective examination of the Press. There has been great public interest in this man. We were not able to give any guidance, the Germans gave different guidance every day, and the Press naturally endeavoured to satisfy the public desire for information by recalling all kinds of details which came to their hands. It seems to me that the whole episode has been entertaining as well as important.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with the other Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS (PUBLIC FUNCTIONS).

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister whether the practice of Cabinet Ministers attending minor functions, such as the opening of local War Weapons Weeks, has his approval, in view of the great burdens which fall upon them in carrying out their constitutional duties; and whether he will consider issuing an instruction on the subject?

The Prime Minister: Questions like this must be left to the discretion of individual Ministers, and I am not prepared to issue any such instructions.

Commander Bower: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, is he aware that the Ministers who are most assiduous in attending such functions are the least assiduous in following his own very excellent example in attending this House to answer Questions? Will the Prime Minister reconsider the question of instructing Ministers that not the least important part of their duties is to attend this House, answer Questions, meet criticism and receive guidance?

The Prime Minister: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for his

thanks, I am not aware that any of the Ministers have been remiss in their attendance in this House.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Prime Minister aware that the net result of the so-called generous contribution by a certain insurance company was to increase the charges on the Exchequer by more than £60,000 a year? Will he reconsider that matter?

Captain McEwen: Is it with the approval of the Prime Minister that the practice has grown up since the war of Parliamentary Private Secretaries speaking on behalf of their Ministers?

The Prime Minister: It is not customary for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to speak on matters with which their Departments are connected.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Prime Minister aware that recently Parliamentary Private Secretaries made statements which were broadcast as though they were authoritative statements? I, for one, do not wish to limit their activities during the weekend, because of their limited hours of work during the week, but will the Prime Minister ask them not to involve their chiefs in speeches without consultation of some kind?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave, but all these conversations are, of course, studied by all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider recommending the bestowal of the prefix "Royal" to the Home Guard, in recognition of the self-sacrificing and devoted services this Force is giving to the country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think such a change is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — FREE PEOPLES (COMMONWEALTH).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the possibilites and advantages of initiating the formation of a commonwealth of free peoples based on the co-operation of those Governments now operating on British or Allied territory, and the acceptance of any other nations willing to fight


for the restoration or preservation of their freedom?

The Prime Minister: Any consideration which I have been able to give to the spacious and speculative matters referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has not so far led me to seek an opportunity of committing myself or His Majesty's Government upon it.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind such a suggestion as I have made which might lead to the ultimate creation of a real League of Nations based on freedom?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the value of board and lodging will be taken into account in computing employés' assess able income?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is an unfair incidence of taxation that people with £100 or £150 a year have included in their wages free board and lodging, whereas those who do not have free board and lodging included have to bear the full burden of taxation?

Sir K. Wood: That is one contention which can be made, but any additional advantage which a person may receive cannot be added to his wages for the purpose of taxation unless it can be turned into money.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Notice of Motion down in the names of over 150 Members of Parliament of all parties favouring a national State scheme of family allowances, he will cause an estimate to be prepared of the approximate cost of such a scheme at the rate of 5s. weekly for every child under 15 years of age in the United Kingdom, on the assumption that the gross cost would be reduced to the extent of the provision already made out of State or local government funds for such children, through rebates on Income Tax, or through allow-

ances directly paid on behalf of children of men in the Armed Forces, of war pensioners, of civilian widows, of persons coming under unemployment insurance or under the Assistance Board or the public assistance authorities, or for evacuated children, or any other relevant provision; and, if the figures under any of these headings are unobtainable, will he indicate the factors omitted?

[That this House would welcome the introduction of a national State-paid scheme of allowances for dependent children, payable to their mothers or acting guardians, as a means of safeguarding the health and well-being of the rising generation; this House urges His Majesty's Government to give immediate consideration to the formulation of such a scheme.]

Sir K. Wood: An estimate is being prepared of the cost of paying an allowance of 5s. a week in respect of every child under 15 in the United Kingdom. It is uncertain how far a complete estimate could be made of the extent to which the cost would be reduced on the assumptions made in the latter part of the Question, but the matter is being immediately investigated and I will inform my hon. Friend in due course.

Mr. MacLaren: Does that mean that the Government are entertaining this farmyard conception of breeding people in this country?

PATENT MEDICINES (TAXATION).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that his predecessor when withdrawing, in response to the views of this House, his proposal to discontinue the taxation of patent medicines, promised to re-examine the question of continuing to tax them, and repeated this promise to a deputation of hon. Members; whether the re-examination took place; and with what result?

Sir K. Wood: On the outbreak of war, in view of the pressure on the time of all concerned, the procedure contemplated by my predecessor was abandoned. Subsequently, however, on 13th August last I gave an undertaking to see, before the next Finance Bill, whether I could not get the parties together and try and get some reasonable solution of the matter, and my hon. Friend is I think aware of the recent developments in this connection.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Chancellor aware that the only parties consulted were the vendors, who are not the only parties interested in the matter? Does he think it right that the Government should have violated this expressed policy without any word of explanation?

Sir K. Wood: I think that the procedure which is now in operation is the best. Obviously we cannot have a long inquiry, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is in touch with all the parties who are interested in the matter.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the advertisement of patent medicines was one of the scandals which was dealt with in the last war? No one knows why the Government have given in on this question. Has the Chancellor read the Debate in another place recently?

Sir K. Wood: I will in due course.

Viscountess Astor: In due course? Why not now?

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RELIEF (RATES).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether he has relieved landlords of their responsibility to pay rates and Schedule A in cases where tenants are allowed to keep furniture in houses for which the courts have relieved them of the payment of rent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Where a landlord is responsible for the payment of rates, either under a resolution of the rating authority, or under an agreement to pay whether the premises are occupied or not, any question as to his liability in the circumstances mentioned would be a matter for the decision of the rating authority or, on appeal, the courts It is not one in which my right hon. Friend is empowered to intervene. As regards Income Tax, Schedule A, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in such a case as is referred to, relief would be given by reference to the rent from which the tenant is relieved.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Am I to understand from the hon. Lady that a local authority may make a regulation providing that a landlord has to pay rates whether he is receiving rent or not, and that a

court may reverse that decision and say that an occupier may continue to be occupying the house, as far as the furniture is concerned, although the tenant is living somewhere else, and the landlord is receiving no rent?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will read the reply, he will see that the matter lies with the rating authorities, and that if the householder is dissatisfied, he can appeal to the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' HOUSES (RENT ARREARS).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increasing burden placed upon local government authorities throughout Britain by arrears of rent accumulating around the families of men called up to the Forces; and whether, in view of the inability of the men and their families to meet this burden in many cases, he will take steps to remove it from the local authorities on to the Government?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have no evidence that local authorities are suffering unduly from arrears of rent incurred by tenants of council houses serving with the Forces. The hon. Member will be aware of the scheme, administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, under which special financial assistance is available to members of the Forces who are unable to meet their civil liabilities amongst which is included the payment of rent. My right hon. Friend has suggested to the local authorities who have sought advice on this matter that they should bring this scheme to the notice of their tenants.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that it is impossible for many of these men to pay heavy rents, and that it is impossible for the local authority to take the ordinary procedure and evict them? In view of this situation, will the Department not reconsider making some effort to assist local authorities in the very heavy financial burden which is thrown upon them?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. It is because of that that the Government are assisting these people through the scheme administered by the Minister of Pensions. In many cases local authorities have been informed of this scheme and have been


asked to inform tenants who are in difficulties.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Lady aware that thousands of these cases have been refused by the Minister of Pensions and that people are simply unable to pay rent? If the Minister has no information in regard to local authorities being in difficulty over this matter, I will get the information for her.

Miss Horsbrugh: We shall be very glad of it, because we have already been in communication with local authorities. In the majority of cases there has been no difficulty, but one or two local authorities have been in difficulty, and information has been given to them.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the hon. Lady call on local authorities to supply information in regard to accumulated arrears arising from delay in the payment of extra allowances to ex-Servicemen who are tenants in their municipal houses?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (WORKS OF ART, SAFETY).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he will instruct that all the remaining stained glass, pictures and removable sculpture, and other materials of an artistic character, in the Palace of Westminster be removed, so that no more of it be damaged?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): A number of the more valuable pictures and other works of art have already been moved to a place of safety. I have given instructions for a further selection to be moved, but a general clearance does not seem either desirable or necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIRECTOR OF CEMENT.

Captain Lyons: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of works and Buildings whether the Director of Cement holds any other appointments or directorships; what are in the main the functions and duties of the office; whether the present holder is in receipt of any, and what, payments or emoluments from

the cement, or any allied, industry; and whether he retains any position, remunerated or not, in the cement industry?

Mr. Hicks: The Director of Cement is a director of four business concerns, not connected with the cement trade. His responsibility is, under the Director-General, to direct the work of production, allocation and distribution of cement. He has nothing to do with prices or costs. On his appointment he resigned the chairmanship of the Cement Makers' Federation and of the Cement and Concrete Association. He continues to receive remuneration from the industry, but I am not aware of the amount of this.

Captain Lyons: Do we understand that the Director of Cement, who arranges the priorities of the trade and disputes among the trades in the priorities, is actually in receipt of a stipend from the industry concerned about which he is going to adjudicate?

Mr. Hicks: I answered that Question by saying that he is under the control of a Director-General and that his work is to direct production, allocation and distribution and that he does not operate priorities.

Captain Lyons: And in the distribution which he arranges he is paid by the trade to which he is contributing work. Is not this a wholly novel and thoroughly unsatisfactory position?

Mr. A. Edwards: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that this gentleman received a salary of £5,000 and that, when he ceased to be a Member of these organisations he received another £1,000? Is that a satisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Hicks: I cannot answer as to the amount, otherwise I would have given it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The point is a question not so much of amount as of principle. When the Government, under the stress of war urgency, have to interfere more and more in industry and invite someone from industry to give them assistance, if the industry is prepared to pay a retainer, or emolument, or remuneration, or salary, whether it is £500 or £1,000 it does not matter. If the principle is correct, £5,000 or £10,000 would be justified. If the principle is wrong, neither £5,000 nor


£10,000 would be justified. The services which have been invited are of a special character, to give assistance with no control or regulation of prices or costs, and they concern only production, allocation and distribution.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is he net worth this sum?

WAR SITUATION.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make about the war situation?

The Prime Minister: Since we last were together several important events have happened on which perhaps I might presume to say a few words to the House. The victory of Amba Alagi has resulted in the surrender of the Duke of Aosta and his whole remaining forces, and must be considered to bring major organised resistance by the Italians in Abyssinia to an end. No doubt other fighting will continue for some time in the South, but this certainly wears the aspect of the culmination of a campaign which I think is one of the most remarkable ever fought by British or Imperial arms. It reflects the utmost credit on Generals Cunningham and Platt, who discharged so well the task assigned to them by the Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East, Sir Archibald Waveil. When we look back to January, I find that the best expert opinion fixed the middle or end of May as the earliest date at which we could advance upon Kismayu, and anyone who has acquainted himself with the geography will see the enormous achievements, beyond anything that could have been hoped for, which have been accomplished by audacious action and by extraordinary competence in warfare in those desolate countries.
I take this opportunity of pointing out that in this campaign the South African Army, strong forces raised in the Union of South Africa, have played a most distinguished part. They were ordered by General Smuts to go forward, and, now that this theatre is closing down, they are to move northward to the Mediterranean. But also two British Indian divisions have gained laurels in the fighting at Kassala and all the way from Kassala to Keren and in the final event. These Indian divisions consist of six

Indian and three British battalions. I am assured that the greatest admiration is felt at the extraordinary military qualities displayed by the Indian troops and that their dash, their ardour and their faithful endurance of all the hardships have won them the regard of their British comrades. Sometimes we have seen cases where not a single British officer remained and the battalion conducted itself in the most effective manner. Altogether this campaign is one which reflects very high honour upon the soldiers of India of all castes and creeds who were engaged. I feel that I could not refer to this matter without bringing it in a direct and emphatic manner to the attention of the-House.
The second event which has occurred since we were last here is the sharp and well sustained action at Sollum. This is of interest because it was fought exclusively between British and German troops. It has not, I suppose, been found worth while to maintain Italian troops at the end of such a long and precarious line of communications. Fighting was severe but, of course, not on a very large scale. Several of our motorised brigades, supported by armoured brigades and strong artillery, advanced about 30 miles from the position where they had been deployed for some weeks past and attacked the enemy, taking Sollum, Halfaya Pass and Fort Capuzzo, and the armoured troops then got round the tanks and were very well situated about one o'clock on the 17th. The Germans launched a resolute counter-attack by about 40 tanks and recaptured Capuzzo. That entailed the withdrawal of the armoured brigade from the advantageous position which it had attained. The operation, therefore, was indecisive. The Germans claim 100 British prisoners, but we have 500 Germans in our hands, and the losses in tanks and in personnel on their side are certainly as heavy as, if not heavier than ours. These operations must be regarded on the background that for more than six weeks past the Germans have been proclaiming that they would shortly be in Suez and have been making much credit with the neutral world by spreading at large statements of this kind. It is, therefore, satisfactory for us to see that we have retained strong offensive power and that the fighting is being maintained, at any rate, on even terms in the advance areas of the approaches to Egypt.
The third matter is not yet known to the House. For the last few days our reconnoitring aeroplanes have noticed very heavy concentrations of German aircraft of all kinds on the aerodromes of Southern Greece. We have attacked them night after night, inflicting considerable damage. It is now clear that these concentrations were the prelude to an attack upon Crete. An air-borne attack in great strength started this morning, and what cannot fail to be a serious battle has begun and is developing. Our troops there—British, New Zealand and Greek Forces—are under the command of General Freyberg, and we feel confident that most stern and resolute resistance will be offered to the enemy.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make about Business?

The Prime Minister: In announcing the Business on Thursday I informed the House that we desired to pass the Fire Services Bill through all its stages to-day on grounds of urgency. The second Motion on the Order Paper will facilitate that proceeding. It is also necessary for us to obtain the remaining stages of the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Bill today. Both these Measures are connected with the war effort. The organisation of the fire service is required to defeat what is at present the most dangerous feature of the enemy's aerial attack; and the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Bill is required so that we may secure the maximum use of Allied shipping in waging the Battle of the Atlantic. The Government consider that it is important that these Bills should receive the Royal Assent without delay, and we desire to pass them to-day so that they may be sent to another place for consideration. We are, therefore, proposing a Motion to extend the hours of Sitting in case more time should be required, but we hope that hon. Members in all parts will cooperate to conclude the urgent Business, without forcing the House to sit to a very late hour.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the Prime Minister make any statement about what progress can be made on the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) Bill?

The Prime Minister: Whenever there is a break in the Business, that Bill will be pushed forward. We are most anxious to bring it forward.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)

Ordered,
That if the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House further proceeding on the Bill shall stand postponed; that any Resolution come to by the Committee on Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) [Money] may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such a Resolution; and that as soon as the proceedings on Report of the Resolution have been concluded the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill." — [The Prime Minister.]

BILLS REPORTED.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

CAMBORNE WATER BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I should like to express my thanks to the House for having so readily given us the facilities for the passage of this Bill through all its stages to-day. It is a Bill of urgency, because the sooner it is passed on to the Statute Book, the sooner we can proceed with the considerable amount of work which will necessarily be involved in shaping the new organisation and administration. To-day we are concerned with the subject of fire fighting in relation to the organisation and control of the fire-fighting forces of the country. Wider questions of Civil Defence with which this is inevitably associated in many ways are not before the House, but I understand that there is a desire in some quarters of the House that at an early date, as soon as it can conveniently be arranged, there should be a Debate on Civil Defence generally. I can say that, as far as the Government are concerned, we are willing and, indeed, anxious that that Debate shall take place as soon as possible. I shall personally welcome it very much indeed, if only to deal with some of the theoretical arguments which have recently arisen.
Fire brigades are administered in the administrative county of London by the London County Council and elsewhere by county boroughs, non-county boroughs, urban and rural district councils. This machinery of administration was decided upon by Parliament, unanimously as recently as 1938. The Measure which was introduced at that time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), who was then Home Secretary, commended itself to all quarters of the House. I remember raising among my own friends the point whether the preservation of 1,400 fire brigade authorities was right, but it was felt that, on the whole, we had better not raise any question as to the number of local authorities concerned as fire brigade authorities. I would remind the House however that

that was a Measure not only for putting the fire brigades on some sort of recognisable statutory basis. It was stated to be a Measure of preparation for war conditions. It was one of the preparations for the war which appeared then to be impending. Nevertheless, it was the case, as recently as 1938, that Parliament and the Government of the day, having in mind preparation for war conditions, did deliberately preserve 1,400 fire brigade authorities including county boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban and rural districts. I admit that Parliament did take the rather dashing and bold course of abolishing parish councils as fire brigade authorities, but as most of the parish councils had not got fire brigades in any case, there was not a great deal in that.
That, as I say, was in 1938, and there was no discussion in the Press about it, no great comment and no great argument about it. The Measure went through harmoniously. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) did raise a point as to the number of authorities, as also did a few of my hon. Friends of the Labour party, but, on the whole, Parliament was perfectly content with the arrangements proposed, and I am bound to say that many people who have been very active recently on the fire fighting issue were not active at that time. Moreover, that Measure followed on the recommendations of the Riverdale Committee, which had considered whether larger authorities should be established. The Riverdale Committee, after careful thought, deliberately recommended that boroughs and urban districts should remain fire brigade authorities; that rural districts should be constituted fire brigade authorities in place of the parishes and that the parish should cease to exist as a fire brigade unit. They did propose that joint committees of local authorities should be set up in order to establish fire-fighting forces over wider areas, but the local authorities were anxious that this should not be made compulsory, and it was not made compulsory though it was made possible under the Measure.
I must say that I do not regard the joint committee as an ideal unit of local government administration. I think a joint authority is a very doubtful instrument of administration, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West


Bethnal Green was good enough in the Debates at that time to quote a statement of mine to the effect that a joint authority had too much joint about it, and not enough authority. That, indeed is the view which I take. The Riverdale Committee was unable to recommend the adoption of the county as the unit, or the formation of ad hoc fire brigade areas, involving the creation of new local government bodies and special rating arrangements. So, when the war broke out, this was the basis, administrative and organic, of the fire-fighting organisation in Great Britain. It was based upon these small units, with the exception that in Scotland the county councils had powers and in a number of cases there were county fire brigades. But we started the war on the administrative basis which I have described and which has been preserved up to the present time, namely the county thorough, the non-county borough and the urban and rural districts.
Having said that, I would add that fire brigade organisation, mobilisation, operation and expansion have changed out of all recognition since the war. Very large changes have taken place in fire brigade organisation since the war with the result that mobilisation and operations are almost unrecognisable as compared with what they were before the war. For example the bringing into existence of the Auxiliary Fire Service has had the effect of multiplying the fire-fighting forces of the country, their personnel and equipment, by from 15 to 20 times. I venture to say that, when it is remembered that this multiplication has been married basically to the local authorities' organisation, the House would be lacking in justice if it did not say that the local authorities have achieved a remarkable feat of organisation by absorbing that vast expansion of personnel and equipment. As an old local government man, I have pleasure in paying my tribute to the adaptability of our local government authorities in these times of stress, their enthusiasm and public spirit and in most cases, their very high degree of efficiency.
For myself, I am not yet converted to the view of those who seem to be anxious to undermine and destroy British local government as it is now constituted. I do not like to hear people urging that we should substitute nominated institutions

for representative institutions. I prefer the representative authority to the Gauleiter. I prefer the elected body to the French system of prefects, and if today I bring forward a proposal which takes a great service out of the hands of local authorities, it is not because I want to do so, not because I like doing so, but because the work of fighting fire has, in substance, become a military operation and not a municipal operation. Nevertheless I want to sound a note of warning. In this war, which is being fought for liberty and democracy, there are in some quarters dangerous tendencies which seek —I do not know with what motives, whether snobbish, or political, or what they may be—to undermine our representative institutions and to substitute government by nominated authorities. There has been, as I said, this great expansion of the municipal fire services. The whole-time Auxiliary Fire Service consists of 80,000 firemen, and before the war the total professional fire force in this country was about 5,000 to 6,000.

Mr. Buchanan: Does that figure include Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: I am not certain, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will clear up that point later. The part-time Auxiliary Fire Service has reached the big total of 150,000. I would like to say that not only are we anxious that the existing part-time Auxiliary Fire Service force shall be maintained; we want to see it increased. I would therefore beg part-time A.F.S. men or women not to leave the service because of this Bill; we need them as much as ever, and indeed we need more of them. We have purchased and distributed to the authorities no less than 25,000 power appliances, heavy and light. That is an enormous addition to the fire-fighting equipment of the country. It is not only the case that the local authorities have had their fire-fighting personnel and equipment enormously extended and their responsibilities greatly increased. Behind that there is a very considerable Regional machine—and I mention this because it does not seem to be known to everybody —with Regional technical fire officers who are in close touch with local authorities, who visit them, confer with them and tell them what to do in relation to actual experiences of the blitz and in some cases help by taking over command for limited


periods. That Regional technical general stuff, so to speak, has already been of the greatest value. Moreover, we have been able to move men and equipment in great numbers from place to place The Regional organisation has worked with very great success; and again I pay my tribute to the public spirit of the local authorities, because notwithstanding all the friction that did exist in peace-time between local authorities—rivalries, emulations, jealousies if you like, to use the worst word—my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) says that it still exists, but I think that she libels or slanders them.

Viscountess Astor: Now, do not start that.

Mr. Morrison: I think that is not true, and I was going to say this—and this is true—that I do not know of one case in which a local authority has refused to help another.

Viscountess Astor: Do not say I slandered them. That is not fair.

Mr. Morrison: In not one instance has a local authority refused to help another, and I think it is a great tribute to the spirit of local government that that should be the case.

Major Milner (Leeds, South-East): Was there not a celebrated difficulty between Salford and Manchester at the time of the blitz on Manchester?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think so. It did not come to my notice. They were always willing to help each other. The only difficulty I have met with, and that was in rare cases, was where a local authority wanted to be proud of coming through on its own feet and did not like to ask for help from another local authority. But those instances are very rare. As I have said, that Regional reorganisation took place, and at the Home Office there was a considerable strengthening of the fire brigade division, making it much more powerful than before. Then the war came, but, unexpectedly, the blitz did not come. There were quiet months. The basic local unit was maintained. But there was some difficulty in maintaining the numbers of the Auxiliary Fire Services at the numbers which the Home Office wished. It will be remembered that in this House and in the Press during

those quiet months there was a very forceful and powerful demand that the numbers of the Civil Defence personnel, including firemen, should be reduced. There were crude jokes about firemen playing darts and draughts, and it was said that it would be better that they should be in the Army. There was a great campaign to reduce uniforms, and at the London County Council I had the struggle of my life to get us. a head for uniforms for women ambulance drivers and attendants. And it was not the fault of the Home Office. There was definite pressure against this great reserve army of Civil Defence from the Press and from this House in those quiet and deceptive months, when it was of the utmost importance that that personnel should be maintained at full strength, trained and properly treated, ready for bad times. The House will forgive me for mentioning these troubles through which my predecessor went.
Then the blitz started, but, at the beginning of the blitz, fire was not the important single element in the attacks that it is at the present time. In due course, however—and it was not very long—it became apparent that fire was, perhaps, the biggest single element in the enemy's attack. That was notably the case at Coventry last November. I do want to say this—and I know that the House will agree with me—that in these weeks and months of heavy fire fighting the regular and auxiliary firemen and firewomen have done a magnificent job of work of which this country can be proud. They have done splendidly, and we are very very grateful to them for their courage and their heroism. But when a battle begins with intensity, and when it goes on in that intensity, then on the military analogy I think that until you can get your second wind you have to do the best you can with the forces at your command. You cannot, right at the beginning of the battle, start turning the machinery of administration inside out, uprooting local authorities and trying to make a brand new organisation. You must inevitably wait a little until you have become accustomed more to the battle and gained experience, and, in this country, until public opinion is sufficiently educated to enable these changes to be made. But in any case, in the more exciting days of battle, in the early stages, it would have been impossible


and unwise merely to uproot things. Instead, the wiser course was taken of development, rapid strengthening, and the transmission of experience from authority to authority throughout the country.
Next we had to expand fire prevention as well as fire fighting, and now we have come to the conclusion that we have reached the stage when it is safe and wise radically to change the fire-fighting organisation of the country, because the fundamental difficulty in the present arrangements is the relatively small basic unit upon which the whole fire-fighting machine must be built. It is very necessary for London Members like myself to recognise that the fire-fighting service in the provinces is very different from that in London—totally different. I went to one considerable county borough where there was a regular fire brigade of 30 persons in peace-time, plus a chief officer and a deputy chief officer. I was accustomed on the London County Council to a vast fire-fighting machine that was more like the army or the navy, with its chief officer, deputy chief officer, divisional officers, superintendents, station officers, sub-officers and men. But it is the rule in the provinces, outside a very few big cities, to have only a limited number of private soldiers, as it were, with a chief officer and, possibly, a deputy chief officer, over them. In another town which has had a very severe attack there was a professional fire brigade—all too small, I think, and a great reflection on the local authority—of about 10 or 11 professional firemen, with a chief officer and a mere handful of part-time volunteers. It was too small a brigade for peace-time. That was wrong.
The operational problem is for these small units of fire-fighting organisations suddenly to absorb very large reinforcements of men and equipment and to find it possible to handle them. That is really the operational case against the smallest or even the biggest local authority being the basic unit of the organisation. It must be remembered that many a provincial town of limited size has had to fight fires which were unrecognisably beyond anything that the fire brigades of the great cities, or of London, had to face before the war. And, if there have been difficulties, if there have been imperfections, and if there have been situations which

no fire brigade in the world could have handled—and that is the case; and the Germans are experiencing the same thing —it must be recognised that where there is a big fire in a small town there is bound to be difficulty for the local brigade and for the incoming forces. Yet, when all is said and done it is the case, in our view, that the preservation of the local authorities, even the larger ones, as basic units is not good enough for the situation which is facing us.
The real weakness of present arrangements is the many small units of administration. The first consequence is that very small plans of operation and mobilisation may involve 20 or 30 separate local authorities and chiefs of fire brigades. That makes it difficult, if not: virtually impossible, to secure sufficient unity or breadth of plan for meeting major contingencies. Fire fighting has become a military operation. This situation is something like that of an army with nothing bigger than a squad or a company to handle. Secondly, it is impossible to secure the best use of the available personnel, especially of the limited numbers of officers with experience and of proved capacity. That difficulty must, I am afraid, persist for some little time. If you have local brigades in which there is no hierarchy of officers and N.C.O s., you have not the personnel out of which to select officers for a sudden expansion. I think that was the weakness in the conception of the Act of 1938. The need of rapid expansion in the number of officers to take responsible charge of these things was not foreseen. The Bill will enable us to evolve an organisation to provide a large number of officers and will, incidentally, be of great advantage to the firemen, by widening the opportunities of promotion to positions of responsibility in the service. It would be my instruction to my officers and to the Regions that they shall be on the look-out for bright and enterprising younger men for these responsible positions, and shall give them their head and let them take their responsibility.
Thirdly, there has been a shortage of man-power. With the need of recruitment for the Armed Forces and competition from other forms of employment, including the war industries, it becomes almost impossible to expand the fire-


fighting services as quickly as we would wish. Recently, Parliament has been good enough to give us the National Service Act, which was passed in April and under which we can call men up for service in the same way as they are called up for the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is that Act operating with success?

Mr. Morrison: The machinery for calling up is now proceeding. I expect to get in a few weeks the number that I asked for. The machinery is running now, under that Act. Subject to that, we were in the greatest difficulty in securing the number of men. There has also been difficulty in getting a sufficient number of towing vehicles. Although the supply has been enormously developed since the war — and had been developed before the war—further large supplies have been ordered, in common with other equipment, to replace those worn out and to meet further needs and replacements. There has been some inadequacy of measures for emergency water supplies, despite all that we have done and are doing. Water is not to be found everywhere. When mains are burst, difficulties are met with. We have made very extensive arrangements for reserve supplies, static supplies, dirty water and so on, which have proved of great value.
Consider what may happen in an air raid. Somebody sees fire raging while the fire brigades have no water. There is, not unnaturally, a tendency to regard that as a failure on the part of the fire brigades. Such situations are regarded as conclusive evidence that the whole organisation is wrong and fundamentally bad. I venture to advise a little caution in coming to such judgments. There is a local authority which recently examined an allegation of this kind. On the face of it, the position was tragic. Considerable fires were in progress, and the fire brigades were without water. The chief officer was, quite rightly, called upon for an explanation. He agreed that the situation was bad and even terrible, but he said, "Before you pass judgment you had better know what happened" His explanation will show the House the kind of thing which happens in fires during an enemy attack. First of all, the water mains were broken by high explosives.

The fire brigade at once proceeded to adjust its pumps to use the reserve, static supply. It had foreseen the possibility of the water mains being broken, and had got ready for that situation by providing a reserve, a static supply. It proceeded to fix its pumps to this supply, whereupon the enemy dropped bombs upon that supply, which was some distance away from the damage already created. The bomb destroyed the static supply and smashed the pumps that were being used. It smashed up the men, killing or injuring them. So that plan went wrong. Lines of hose were then run from dirty water, at a very considerable distance. This water was brought up. Then a great building, which was either struck by high explosive or had become undermined by fire, fell, crashed over the hoses and cut the supply again. Damage to the roads prevented the access of vehicles.
Sometimes, when I read wise letters from some of our strategists or hear of public speeches complaining that, as fires are allowed to go on, there must be something wrong with the whole organisation of the fire brigade service, I wish that such people were, now and again, in the middle of the battle and were not so quick to pass judgment and criticism, not only upon Civil Servants and Ministers, but upon brave men who do their best in the midst of the greatest difficulties. The House and the country must face the fact that an air atack is not a treat. It is a grim thing. It is an act of war. People who think that it is only a matter of going out next morning and sweeping up the waste paper are quite wrong. Raids are acts of war which create very considerable disturbance. Firemen faced with incidents of the kind I have related deserve our sympathy and support, so do local authorities which have to handle such situations, and so do the Ministers and Civil Servants concerned.
We have come to the conclusion that the remedy for these situations is not the mere extension of local services. That has been done and has made a very big contribution to the battle. The creation of ad hoc authorities is not a clean method. It does not give you the necessary administrative elbow-room or operational elbow-room. The right thing is the transfer to the State, for the duration of hostilities, of the administration and control of the fire-fighting services,


to myself in England and Wales, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in Scotland. This is made possible by this enabling Bill, and it will be seen that Clause 1, Sub-section (1) enables either my right hon. Friend or myself to make regulations for the coordination of fire services provided by local authorities, for unification in whole or part of those services, and for the improvement of arrangements for fighting fires. The Schedule, without prejudice to these general powers, which I certainly intend to use, sets out particular matters on which regulations may be made. Under the Bill local fire brigades will cease to exist as such, and all firemen will be transferred to the service of the Crown and put under direct State control. Their pay, conditions of service and discipline will be regulated by the State.

Mr. Leach: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a minimum wage all round?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think we had better deal with that point to-day. It is one of the problems which I shall have to face, in addition, as my hon. Friend appreciates, to many others. I can assure him that his point is under consideration, but I am not ready for it to-day. The State will secure the use of all fire stations, appliances and equipment in the hands of the local authorities, and will bear the peace-time cost of the regular fire brigade, subject to a contribution of 75 per cent. of that cost, that is to say, the local authority will, for the first time, get in respect of the cost of the peace-time fire brigade a grant of 25 per cent.

Mr. Graham White: Superannuation will remain untouched?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, that will run on. We shall make suitable arrangements with the local authorities in that connection. The local authorities now bear part of the cost of the Auxiliary Fire Service. In the new circumstances they will bear no part of that cost, and they are therefore saved any contribution towards the cost of the Auxiliary Fire Service in all cases where they are taken over. There were local authorities with no fire brigades at all, but who ought to have had them. They are not a great number, but in those cases we shall require from them the

equivalent of 75 per cent. of the product of a 2d. rate. We feel that they should not escape some contribution to the cost of the fire protection now to be provided merely because they have not provided a fire brigade.

Mr. Lipson: Since the local authorities will still have to pay 75 per cent. of their peace-time expenditure, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they will have any right to be consulted in an advisory capacity in regard to what is being done about their local brigade?

Mr. Morrison: With regard to the local services, I cannot promise that they will be specifically consulted. Naturally, so far as the interests of local authorities are involved, the Regional and sub-Regional organisation will, I think, be wise to keep in touch with them, not only as a favour to them, but because they are authorities likely to be helpful. It is my intention to set up nationally a consultative body representative of the local authorities so that they can know what we are doing, discuss with us what we propose to do and give us their advice and help. After all, they have great experience in these matters, and I do not want to lose that experience in the new arrangements.

Mr. Neil Maclean: If the local authorities are to have representation on such a body, the smaller local authorities which have been behind in their fire-fighting preparations may be able to out-vote the larger bodies with up-to-date fire services, and consequently the best advice will not be available. Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make on that subject?

Mr. Morrison: Representation will be through the associations of local authorities. Representation must be limited, otherwise the consultative body would become unwieldy. No doubt it will be the tendency for local authorities to appoint proper people to these positions. I am sure they will not appoint somebody connected with an authority which has not done its job.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he and the Secretary of State for Scotland will make proper provision for trade union representation of the men concerned?

Mr. Thorne (Plaistow): Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how salaries and wages will be paid?

Mr. Morrison: The actual way in which they will be paid is not finally decided, but it is quite probable that I shall seek to use the machinery of the local authorities for the purpose. There will be a number of ways in which we shall use the machinery of the local authorities to avoid too much of a State bureaucracy, and that is why so many and varied powers are contemplated in the Bill. In regard to the trade unions, I will come to that point in a minute.

Sir Joseph Lamb: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the question of authorities which have made no provision at all, and has said they will have to pay a contribution of 75 per cent. of the product of a 2d. rate. What about those authorities which have made inadequate provision? Will they be expected to pay the same contribution?

Mr. Morrison: That will be a matter for consideration. If I were to try to make a precise adjustment of the contribution in relation to the relative efficiency of each local authority, I should be faced with a most difficult administrative problem. We will consider the point, but I cannot promise to make a precise adjustment of the contribution in relation to efficiency. It will be open for me to make arrangements with the local authorities for them to act as, my agents in a number of matters, and that is why I am very anxious that the House, in passing this Bill, shall seek in its Debate to preserve the good will and co-operation of the local authorities towards the change.
That is the case for the Bill. The House will realise that I have not been able to speak in complete detail about the experiences we have undergone, because had I done so, I should have been in danger of giving valuable information to the enemy. In fact, I think some of the publicity given to certain fire experiences has almost encouraged the enemy to go on with what he has been doing. Some of it has been very dangerous, and I am therefore sure the House will forgive me if I have not gone too far into detail about the strategical aspects of fire-fighting. I am sure hon. Members will follow what I hope has been my good example in that respect.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a consultative body of local authorities. Is there to be anything in the nature of what I might call a Fire Service Council, a sort of central advisory body to keep in contact with the areas he speaks of?

Mr. Morrison: If the House would be good enough to let me proceed, it would save time. The consultative body to which I have referred would in fact discharge that function, but we shall have our own fire inspection staff, and the Regions will have theirs. There will also be conferences with fire brigades officers, and the actual fire fighters. I have said that, broadly speaking, we are going to make over this great service to the State in England and Wales. But we shall have to delegate many of these matters to the Regions. To run it under a centralised Whitehall command would be ridiculous, and indeed, as soon as I went to the Ministry of Home Security, I decided, and I let it be known, that the more we could delegate to the Regions the better I should be pleased. I do not believe in cluttering up Whitehall with administration which can be done on a local basis. We shall therefore delegate as much as we can to the Regions, which in turn will delegate to the new basic units of fire-fighting organisation, namely, the area or sub-regional forces. That will involve the union of possibly 20 or 30 fire brigades into one fire brigade as the basic unit of the new organisation in an area or a sub-region.
By this process I hope to achieve as soon as possible the remarkable result that 1,400 fire brigades will be reduced to less than 50 large fire brigades. It will take time, for there is much work to be done, and we must go about it in an orderly way. But I think that if we achieve this reduction from 1,400 to less than 50, we shall have achieved a great administrative change. The basic units, the sub-regional brigades, will be under the command of an officer with wide responsibility for operation and control, subject to supervision by the Regional Commissioner, who will have his own staff and responsibilities. There will be regional reserves, which at a moment's notice can be sent anywhere. It will not be always the same reserve. There will be camps, or something of the sort; and we shall transfer the men from reserve to front line, and from front line to reserve, to give


them a change of occupation and opportunities for combined training and wider experience. That regional reserve, which can be thrown in at a moment's notice, will be of the greatest value, and the members will become accustomed to operating on strange ground. There will be, I hope, points of mobilisation outside towns, so that aid coming into a town will be made more effective. The Regional staffs will be increased and improved.

Commander King-Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about industrial fire brigades? As he knows, some of them are fairly large, using equipment provided by the State. Will they come under Clause I?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. These brigades, which are associated with railway companies, industrial concerns, and so on, have a limited sphere of operation, and I think it will be best for them to stay where they are, subject to the Regional authorities knowing all about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), under my direction, and in accordance with the policy I am pursuing, has already been actively engaged in consulting officers and provisionally approving schemes of central reorganisation. I shall have a principal staff officer, who will be a Chief Staff Officer for Fire. There ought not to be any misunderstanding. Actually, the command of fire-fighting must be on the ground. I want a Chief Staff Officer for Fire. We shall also need an Inspector-General. The inspectors will not be attached to Regions, but to headquarters. It will be my job to arrange for the inspection of Regional fire brigades.

Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend is now confining his remarks to England and Wales?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. I have left any specifically Scottish aspects of the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who alone can speak with authority about them. The Regions will be controlled by headquarters, under my direction. I am confident that this new organisation will speed up all necessary measures. I have dealt with the financial provisions, and I think they are quite clear. I may say that the cost of the 25 per cent. to be borne by the State will be about £750,000. It is

estimated—I cannot be quite sure—that the cost of taking over the whole outgoings of the A.F.S., including that part hitherto borne by the rates, will be about £1,250,000. It is probable that additional expenditure will come along, as the brigades are developed on more efficient lines. I am very grateful to fire officers all over the country and to local authorities for the attitude they have adopted. As far as I can see, they recognise, in most cases, that this step is inevitable.
My hon. Friend opposite raised the question of the position of the firemen in relation to trade unions. The point was raised by friends of mine; and, indeed, I raised it myself. I was a bit apprehensive whether there was not trouble ahead, and whether, if the State took over the fire-fighting personnel, those people would not become Civil servants technically, and be thereby prevented from being members of a trade union, under the Trade Disputes and Trades Unions Act, 1927. I am going to keep my remarks on this matter in a very narrow compass, because I do not want to get into matters that may be controversial. I have made careful inquiries. Quite naturally, the trade unions would have held strong views —and I fully understand why—but I am advised, after careful consideration, that Section 5 of the Trades Disputes and Trades Unions Act, 1927, deals with established Civil servants—that is to say, those granted certificates by the Civil Service Commissioners—and also that firemen transferred to the Crown would not be established Civil servants. Therefore, the Act does not apply to them. It is known that at present firemen belong to a number of trade unions, and many of them to no trade union. There have been meetings from time to time, for consultative purposes, between representatives of my Department and of the trade unions; and I see no reason why those meetings should not continue, for consultative purposes.
With regard to the local authorities, I know that many of them will be hurt that this service is taken from them. The fire brigade is often the brightest jewel in the municipal crown, and the local authorities are very proud of their fire-fighting services. I am sorry that this step should be necessary, but fire fighting is now an operation of war. I will give the House this assurance, which I gave to the local


authorities last week:
It is the very definite intention of the Government that this is a war-time expedient only, produced by war conditions, made necessary by a battle, an active fight that is going on day by day. It is certainly my very definite view that after the war the fire-fighting forces should again be a local authority service; that is to say, that they should not be permanently run by the State, but should again become a local authority service." 
It is only fair that that should be so. The brigades are taken over for a war-time purpose; and I do not think there is any reason why after the war they should not again become a local service, subject to the State then making provision for mobilisation on a national bas is in the event of a new emergency. That can be done. Many of our towns and cities have suffered very greatly from fire. The experience of these proud cities has been severe. The enemy has had his troubles, too. I believe that this Bill is necessary, not for the complete solution of this problem—the complete solution is the defeat of the night bomber—but to enable us to make material improvements in fire-fighting organisation. I commend the Bill to the House, and ask that we may be given it with rapidity and good will, so that we may go forward.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the introduction of this Bill, and I hope that it will have a speedy and satisfactory passage. Speaking for myself only, I think the Bill is belated. Without in the least desiring to attack my right hon. Friend or his associates, I wish that its proposals had been made law long ago. I believe that its principles will have to be applied in this sphere, and perhaps very soon in other spheres, of Civil Defence. I did not take part myself in the Debates on the Act of 1938, but, speaking on the First Air-Raid Precautions Bill, in 1937, I ventured to say:
 What will be needed at a time of air raids will be the power of command of a character which the Chief Air Raid Officers of local authorities will not have. Suppose that at Birmingham, the electrical system and gas mains were smashed, they would need breakdown gangs from over a wide region to put it right.
Then I spoke of the fire services, and so on, and I said:
When war comes you will require a power of command from the central Government itself. If we need it in time of war, it ought to be organised in time of peace

I thought in 1937, and I still think to-day, that we were wrong when we thought that air bombardment would present us with a series of local problems which could be dealt with by local officers and local volunteers under the authority of local councils, using equipment locally owned and under the control of the local authorities. I thought, and I still think, that air bombardment constitutes a national problem which ought to be dealt with by national services, working with national equipment under national orders and control. I thought, and I still think, that command was the essential problem which could not be solved on a local authority basis, and that in a dozen other ways, recruitment, training, promotion of competent officers, provision of equipment, the organisation of essential facilities on many matters, the more nearly national the system was, the more successful it was likely to be. To say that is to make no reflection upon the local authorities. Miracles have been performed under the existing system, both by the Ministry of Home Security and by the local authorities, and certainly, if there have been a few local authority failures —and we all know of them—there have been many cases where the courage and devotion which have been shown have been beyond all praise. But that does not even alter the fact that air warfare is a national problem, and, whatever the advantage of it—and I am not disputing for a moment that there were some advantages on the other side—to canalise preparation for defence or attack through a vast number of small and autonomous administrations, differing a great deal in size and personnel, co-ordinated from Whitehall, was a system which was bound in practice to be difficult to work.
I believe that a national system could have made full use of all the local spirit, enthusiasm and knowledge on which we rely, and if proof is needed—it is not an exact analogy, but the main point is there —I think the experience of the Home Guard proves that to be true. What I am saying now has been proved to be true already of other things besides fire fighting. It is perhaps true of the provision of food and rest centres for bombed-out civilians, and indeed, I think, the organising of the Ministry of Food upon a national basis has been necessary and has rendered great service. The problems of


gas, electricity and water supply really ought to be dealt with by a national service, and also transport, and above all, problems of evacuation, though I recognise the great difficulties in the matter. I believe that the evacuation of those who are bombed out, their billeting, and the provision of camps and other temporary accommodation for them, is a business which perhaps ought to be organised on a national basis as our fire services are now to be. I am not complaining that my right hon. Friend has not put all these things into his present Bill. He is right not to have done so, because he must have this Bill at once, and the other matters are a good deal more controversial than this is likely to be. I was very glad that he said that we are soon to have another Debate on the matter, and I hope that then perhaps he will consider whether he cannot extend the same principles which he is putting forward to-day to other spheres of Civil Defence.
If we have not yet been brought to see that it is necessary and right, I believe it is because the weight of the attack, the casualties and the damage are a good deal less than most people, including the Government, expected that they would be, though they are bad enough in all conscience. In April the rate at which civilians were killed was about half the average rate at which the Army, Navy and Air Force had been killed over the 4¼ years of the last war. That is a formidable figure, but we all expected that the weight of attack would be greater and that it would come sooner and have a bigger success in daylight. Looking back, we can see now what a tremendous mistake Marshal Goering made when he failed to bring up his training for night bombing to the same pitch of technical perfection as ours. We can see that, relatively to the German army he made his air force much too small, and thank God he did. If we had, as we now regard it, good fortune in this regard, we must, as my right hon. Friend so rightly said, be prepared for anything that may happen in the future. The destruction of the night bomber is the real solution. Our present night-interception successes are gratifying in the highest possible degree, and if there was no heavy blitz last night, as I understand, it is the tenth night in succession on which we have been rela-

tively free from heavy attack, unless I have misunderstood the communiqués which have been made. Our day interception is so good that for the present at least the problem of day bombardment has almost been banished from our minds. I believe that we shall keep the lead which we at present seem to have over the enemy both in scientific research and in the skill of our personnel, but we have to be prepared for whatever may come. The Nazi scientists, even without Jewish assistance, may make a lucky scoop, and therefore our passive defence must be so organised as to be ready for any trials which time might bring.
The first necessary step is the Bill which the Minister has presented to-day. Everybody will agree with my right hon. Friend that his most urgent and dangerous problem is that of fire. I remember that it was in the middle of 1939 that a Spaniard, who had been in charge of A.R.P. in Barcelona throughout the Spanish war, told me that he thought that fire in England would be the greatest danger, particularly in London, and if we look back to Guernica, Chungking, and Finland before we had attacks here, we can say that experience has shown us that fire here may be the greatest danger. In any case, not thinking in terms of casualties but in terms of our war effort, I feel sure that the whole House will agree that that was true when he said it. We see how great is the defeat which our fire-fighting services have already inflicted upon the Nazis. That is undoubtedly true. I hope and believe that we can make that defeat more and more complete, but to do so this Bill is imperatively required.
My right hon. Friend told us that the Bill was to replace the Bill of 1938 to which the whole House agreed. That was the first Bill dealing with fire fighting which we had had in this House for 40 years. Until it was passed there was no legal obligation upon local authorities to provide protection against fire, and, in fact, as my right hon. Friend said, there were some few areas where no adequate system of fire fighting then existed. Looking back now, it is very easy to say that that Act was a hasty and an unimaginative Measure, but we also see, as he reminded us, that what has been built upon that strange and inadequate administrative foundation has been remarkable. The


service has been multiplied some 15 to 20 times in important areas. Emergency equipment has been produced and furnished on the enormous scale which he described. A very elaborate and successful emergency communication system has been built up, and a Regional reinforcement scheme has been added. There have been Regional technical general staffs, of which he told us, which occasionally have taken over command. That Act had some good effects. I remember the alarm with which I heard some words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), when he introduced the Act of 1938. He was talking about the joint action board recommended by the Riverdale Committee, of which my right hon. Friend has just spoken, and he said that when they came to discuss that proposal with the local authorities the latter took the view that they did not like to set up a series of local bodies of this kind with precepting powers in their areas. I do not think the joint committees was a good plan. I do not think they made a clean job of it and would not do so now but when I thought of war conditions the phrase about "precepting powers" did seem to me extremely ominous.
The fundamental weakness of the Act of 1938 and its system was this: Under its arrangements efficiency depended inevitably on the attitude, action, enterprise and energy of local authorities and their officers. There is no doubt that in the vast majority of cases the attitude and energy of the local authorities had been beyond praise. But there is also no doubt that there remains something of what was indicated by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea—that they do not like other bodies with precepting powers. (An hon. Member: "Quite right") Yes, quite right in peace-time, but, as the Minister has said, this a battle. In his broadcast the other night my right hon. Friend said of this battle that even in its milder form it is war. Things moved with the speed of war. He said that it called for the intense sustained effort of battle. It demanded, as war did, advance planning, firm central control, the power to improvise at any instant and take a decision immediately so as to meet a situation which transforms itself almost from minute to minute. That could not be better expressed, and that is what you

cannot get without precepting powers, without central command which is instant and absolute, allowing no refusal and no delay.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means about "precepting powers."

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea when he introduced the Act of 1938. As I understood him, he meant that local authorities desired that nobody should have any right to give them orders in their own area.

Mr. Morrison: There was once a Metropolitan Asylums Board in London which was an elected body representative of local authorities. They collected money by telling the local authorities how much money they wanted, and the local authorities did not like it, because they had no control over the expenditure.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps I am using the wrong language, but I hope my point is plain. Local authorities did not like it then and probably do not now like other bodies giving them orders in their own areas.

Mr. Morrison: They have been very good.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, they have been very good, and I am sure that they will accept this Bill. I have believed since 1937 that you must have central command, and unless you have it you cannot evolve a system which will work in battle. I think the working of the system has shown two principal defects which will become increasingly important as each week goes by. In the first place, under a system with 1,400 different fire brigades, each of them the servant of a different authority, you cannot make the best use of available personnel and particularly of trained officers, on whose leadership so much depends. I think the Minister said that in some of these quite considerable towns there have been brigades with no whole-time chief officer at all, where the job has been doubled by the chief constable of the borough. That is all right in peace-time, but it cannot be right in time of war.

Viscountess Astor: It is a scandal.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It must often happen that an officer well suited to fire fighting in time of peace is not the right man for battle conditions, because he is too old, too slow, or too tied to old traditional methods. Yet it is an extremely difficult thing for the local authority to get rid of such a man, particularly before a blitz occurs. They cannot put him on a quieter sector of the front or ask a neighbouring town to take him off their hands. They can only throw him out, and that may be extremely unjust to him. I have heard—I do not know whether it is true— that some dismissals have had to be made. Without a national system the removal of unsuitable officers may be slow and difficult and may involve real hardship. To reverse that proposition makes it equally plain but much more important. Only with a national service can you get the right men—men with initiative, energy and resource, born leaders, to put into posts where they can lead. It cannot be done under the present system and in this new form of warfare, as my right hon. Friend said in his broadcast:
where everything is different and unexpected leadership is vitally important.
The other weakness of the present system, in spite of the remarkable arrangements which have been made, is that you cannot make the fullest and most effective use of the fire-fighting forces which exist when in a single show you have to call in 20 to 30 fire brigades which have to work under difficult conditions. They may have to work at night in a place which they do not know, or do not know at all well, where communications have been blocked, where the water system is out of order and there is no one superior man in charge of the lot who knows them and whose orders they are accustomed to taking. Thus things must be very difficult for them. That applies to personnel and equipment. Under the present system there is no superior who can order brigades with the right or the best equipment to the vital spot, distribute equipment in advance to the most vulnerable places and keep it there. There is no one who can build up the strategical reserve of man-power and equipment which there ought to be in every area at the disposal of the man who has to direct the fire fighting exactly as a divisional general disposes of his divisional reserves and

divisional artillery to meet the enemy's most serious attack.
For these reasons—and I have largely repeated what the Minister has said—I think my right hon. Friend's new system is right. I am glad he is putting it through, and I hope that at a later stage he will extend it to some other sphere. I would like to ask a few questions on points which were not entirely clear to me. First, about priority of the local authorities in their fire station, fire engine, and other equipment. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the State will acquire that property.

Mr. Morrison: It will acquire the use of it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That clears up the point. As I understand the matter, this is a war-time plan, and although we may not go back completely to the system which we had before the war, nevertheless the ultimate property will remain in the hands of the local authority. I suppose that any of the property which survives after the war will go back to the local authority, unless, with the authorisation of Parliament, the Home Secretary buys it. Questions have been raised on the financial side. If the property given back is in a very poor condition, no doubt my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider what would be just in the way of compensation to the local authorities. As I understood my right hon. Friend's statement about the finance of the plan, it seems to me at first sight that the arrangements he proposed are necessary, in view of the system we have had so far, and that they are fair to the local authorities, who, I am sure, will recognise that that is so. In any case, if there are difficulties they can be raised in the National Consultative body, which is so wisely being set up. I think I understood what my right hon. Friend told us about the kind of command that is to be created. It is, so to speak, an Army system of command, depending on the Home Secretary directly, and on him alone.

Viscountess Astor: On the Home Secretary?

Mr. Noel-Baker: On the Home Secretary, with his chief staff officer and his inspector-general, who will be in charge of the whole forces. I raise this point because there have been suggestions that


the Regional Commissioners would be brought in at some stage and have executive powers. I do not for one moment doubt that the Regional Commissioners might very usefully advise on how the scheme was working, and that they might have consultative powers of various kinds; but I cannot think that it would be right to invest them with executive powers for fire-fighting and make them the people who give orders.

Mr. Morrison: I think there is a misunderstanding. There will not be a fire-fighting commander-in-chief nationally in the sense that the Army has a fighting commander-in-chief, if that is the right description, because the actual operational units must be in the sub-regions, aided by the regions and co-ordinated by us. I referred deliberately to the chief of fire staff at headquarters rather than the commander-in-chief. With regard to the regions, the Regional Commissioners actually give orders now, and they are obeyed. That system will continue, and, in fact, I should think that their executive responsibility in the new circumstances will increase. Only by that means can I get enough delegation from Whitehall.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am glad that I raised the point. It is the man on the spot who will give the orders, and in the sub-regions it will be the officer in charge who will give the executive orders for fighting the fire. The regional command will send him reinforcements from the remainder of the region.

Mr. Morrison: Or send him somewhere else.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That may be, but in respect of a given emergency in which he requires reinforcements, it will be the regional officer who will give the orders.

Mr. Morrison: As now.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will that officer be acting under the authority of the Regional Commissioner or on his own authority?

Mr. Morrison: He will be acting on the authority of the Regional Commissioner. That does not mean that every time he wants to do something, he will have to ask the Regional Commissioner personally. There are times when, in these operations of a quasi-military character, the officers

must act on their own initiative. My own officers do many things and tell me afterwards, and I back them up, although privately, if I believe they are wrong, I tell them so. The area commanders will act with the authority of the Regional Commissioner and will order people about, and, moreover, they will in all probability have, under the direct command of the Regional Commissioner and his officers, those mobile reserves which will be regional rather than sub-regional forces.

Viscountess Astor: Will the Regional Commissioners have power to get the local authorities to get rid of people who are not satisfactory?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that I cannot have made myself clear. One of the purposes of the Bill is to transfer to the State the local authorities' fire forces. In so far as the local authorities will no longer have control, I cannot see how that point arises.

Mr. Buchanan: As I understand it, the Bill establishes regional control under Regional Commissioners who are already there. There will be an officer in charge. To whom will he be attached—to the Regional Commissioner or the Home Secretary?

Mr. Morrison: He will be responsible to the Regional Commissioner, who, in turn, will be responsible to me.

Mr. Buchanan: His first responsibility will be to the Regional Commissioner?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): Is the Secretary of State for Scotland to be superseded in this matter in what are normally his functions?

Mr. Morrison: I was scrupulously careful to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has to deal with Scotland. I did not presume to discuss the conditions in Scotland, which are not my business, but his.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for elucidating this matter. To carry it a stage further than the explanation he has given, orders from the Home Secretary to the regional fire officer would be sent through the Regional Commissioner?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope it will be made quite plain that the executive powers of these fire officers are very wide and that the fire officer has as great authority as a general in the field, who can give orders without turning often to his civilian chief. The only other point on which I want to ask a question concerns the conditions of the firemen. I understand that my right hon. Friend does not want to deal with that question during the passage of this Bill, and I fully understand, but I hope he will consider again what I am sure he has considered already, namely, the question not only of equalising the conditions of the professional long-service firemen, who are working for 1,400 different fire brigades throughout the country, but if he can, the question of improving and perhaps equalising the conditions of the Auxiliary Fire Service as well. I am sure he has seen reports of a meeting which took place in London yesterday. The general secretary of the union said that whenever soldiers, sailors, airmen and regular firemen are injured through enemy action, but not permanently incapacitated, they are looked after indefinitely on full pay, whereas auxiliary firemen are dismissed after 13 weeks and are given the same injury allowance as ordinary civilians. He went on to say that each severe raid brings, after the 13 weeks' period expires, a further batch of auxiliary firemen who are reduced to comfortless penury for doing their duty. As my right hon. Friend has said, these men are showing splendid courage in the work they have to do. In the Army, we make no difference in conditions between long-term professionals and war-time recruits. These firemen really are soldiers, and I hope that, following this Bill, the purpose of which is to give these men the leadership they need, my right hon. Friend will, if he can, give them a rather greater measure of social justice than they are getting to-day.

Mr. Messer: Is my hon. Friend aware that if a member of the Auxiliary Fire Service is injured and his injury, at the end of eight weeks, shows that he will not be able to resume at the end of 13 weeks, he is cut off at eight weeks and not at 13?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That reinforces my argument. That is a matter which is caus-

ing anxiety, not only to the men of the Auxiliary Fire Service, but to large sections of the public. I do not want to sit down without reinforcing the appeal with which my right hon. Friend ended his broadcast on Saturday night, namely, the appeal to the people of the country that prevention is better than the cure. Fire fighting can be made far easier by fire watching. Up to the present fire-watching schemes have already produced great results, but they are not all working perfectly. In the great blitz on the City of London 10 days ago, there were fires which could and should have been prevented if people had been on the job. I am sure that the willingness to serve is there, and I am sure that the objections which are made are superficial and can be got rid of if this duty is brought home to the public conscience. It is the duty of all hon. Members to help my right hon. Friend in this regard, and to help the people to see that it is in their fundamental interest to stop all fires, and to take their own part in stopping them. If we can make people understand that, then, with this Bill giving central direction, and, I hope, giving powers to the great service which will be under my right hon. Friend's command, we shall succeed in conquering one more of the means by which Hitler believes he can bring us down.

Viscountess Astor: I think the very fact that the Government are bringing in a Bill like this after we have had six months of fire blitz and bomb blitz shows there is something fundamentally wrong with the home front. I welcome the Bill, but it horrifies me to think that we have waited six months to bring it in. I know that if people criticise the Government in these days they are told that they are defeatists, bought politicians, or Fifth Columnists. I am not a defeatist, or a bought politician. I never wanted a job until last month, and then, when I saw what was happening, I came to the conclusion that you had better be an un peaceful politician to fight this war on the home front than have a tremendous respect for the past and such a worship for local authorities. I have come to the conclusion that this respect for local authorities has really been the cause of an absolutely useless waste, not only of lives, but of property and all things that matter most. This is not the time to think


of arguments, party politics and the feelings of people; you have to have quick decisions and above all a plan. I know that the Home Secretary is not entirely to blame.
I put this to the House: Supposing you had a general who had lost 12 battles, would you not begin to wonder whether you ought to get rid of him? The Home Secretary has lost 12 battles, because there have been twelve towns blitzed, bombed and burnt. I do not blame him entirely; I blame the whole of the Government. But he has lost these battles, and now he brings in a Bill to deal with the problem. Everyone knows that you cannot expect the Home Secretary to be blunt and rough with local authorities, because they are his babies. A doting parent is not the best person for a spoilt child. I maintain, with due respect, that this is a time when we should get someone who has not such a profound respect for local authorities to fight this Battle of Britain. I have great respect for local authorities, but peacetime politicians are the very worst people in the world to fight a battle. We know very well that our local authorities were elected for peace-time politics, and that part of peace-time politics is the fight on the home front. There is no time for that now. I know that people in all local authorities have been elected because they have served their party faithfully. But faithful politicians in war-time are not what the country wants. The country is not in the least interested in politics. It is interested in only one thing, and that is to win the war. I say, with due respect, that the Government have to wake up to this Battle of Britain, because so far we have lost heavily, and, I think, quite unnecessarily. I know the Home Secretary, and I have the greatest respect for him, but I feel, and feel very strongly, that we ought to have a man like Lord Trenchard at the head of this Battle of Britain. We want a man who is a great organiser, who is not frightened of anyone, who has proved he is a fighter, who is not thinking of politicians, past or future, and who bears one thing, and one thing only, in mind, and that is what is best for the country.
I hope very much that the Government will wake up to the fact that although the country is loyal, courageous and willing to do anything, it has got a little dis-

couraged about the home front. Nobody wants to be hard on anyone, and we want to do what is right, but how any Minister could have waited while these 12 towns have been burnt and blitzed for six months before doing something drastic is beyond my comprehension. It is not my opinion that the Home Secretary would have had all this trouble with local authorities. I know that when the battle came to Plymouth I had no respect for the feelings of local authorities. I was not thinking of them, but of the people. I believe that if we had not written to the "Times," we should not have had even this Bill. From personal experience, I know that what people need in a battle is leadership. They do not want words. They will listen to anyone who will give them a lead so long as they are perfectly certain that that person has only one thing in mind, and that is the good of the country.
The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) spoke of the fires. The tragedy has been that there has been no leadership. Our whole fire services have been just as they were before the war. The chief constable at Plymouth is at the head of the fire-fighting services there, and although he may be a good man, he has had very little experience of fire fighting. Everyone knows, in the country and in these blitzed towns, and in the House of Commons—I do not know whether the Government knows it—that the first thing a local authority wants to do when a town has been blitzed is to cover up its mistakes. My job is to see that they do not cover them up. I was not going to have mistakes covered up at Plymouth. We have said fearlessly what was wrong and what should be put right. In London it is nothing but a public scandal. One local authority may be efficient and another absolutely useless. They should be gone over and told that this is a war, and that people who are useless must get out. We have waited patiently, and at long last we have a Bill to deal with the situation. I am glad we have brought the Bill before the House, but I want to register my protest again. I think it is unworthy of the people of this country. I wish the House could have seen the people in Plymouth, their courage, endurance and their willingness to do anything.
It is not only the Home Secretary. I think it is the Government themselves. We are losing the battle on the home front, and we shall go on losing it unless we are more active and more courageous and come out and speak seriously and try to get things put right. We have to have more co-ordination all round. If you could see the muddle after a town has been blitzed, you would see how the homeless people walk out into regions already filled with evacuees. A blind man might have known that Plymouth ought to be an evacuation area. The Lord Mayor has been appealing for it for 18 months but has been told by the Government that it could not be. The country round about is filled with people from other areas. There is no planning. The Prime Minister is a magnificent military leader, but we want a home-front leader as well. No one wants to do anything to weaken him, but it is weakness on the part of the House of Commons to have gone on so long and not protested and helped him. I am here to help him. I wonder why the Government in some of their work do not use the best people, whether men or women. I never wanted a Government job until lately, but I have come to the conclusion that men are timorous animals. They write out minutes and think a thing is done. They are always "passing the buck" on to someone else. Women are not like that. When we see something wrong, we go for it until we put it right. There are plenty of women standing about idle when we have doddering old politicians in all parties who ought to have been buried long ago. Government is still too much on party lines. You want to get above that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the Noble Lady that we are not discussing party lines but fire services.

Viscountess Astor: The fire services have been fought on party lines, and respect for local government, and local governments are all governed by party politics. [Interruption.] I wanted to say it, and I have got it out. I appeal to the Home Secretary. Let him make his speeches, let him rouse the country, but for heaven's sake get Trenchard to do the job.

Mr. Graham White: The noble Lady has spoken from the full-

ness of her heart of her experience in a town which has suffered as much probably as any other in the country. She has spoken some words which it was good for us to hear, and I hope we shall profit in this Debate from the experience of those who have been brought face to face with actual facts. But when she suggested that there was action which the Home Secretary or the Government could take which would render any town scathe-less against bombardment from the air, she was suggesting something which might arouse hopes that could not be fulfilled.

Viscountess Astor: We are not discussing bombardment, but fire.

Mr. White: I understand the noble Lady, and I have no wish to cross swords with her. If the qualities of courage, self-sacrifice and endurance could ensure a perfect fire-fighting organisation, there would be nothing more to be done. The services have been tried, and the qualities of endurance and self-sacrifice have excited the admiration of everyone who has been brought into contact with them. Let us never forget that they have already paid a very high price in life, and also in injury, which leads me to raise my voice in support of what was said by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) with regard to the treatment of injured firemen of both services on the same lines as those of any other of the Fighting Services. If personal valour could have achieved this result, there would have been nothing more to be said. To fight a fire under any conditions calls for great qualities of courage and resource, but to fight a fire to the accompaniment of high explosive and incendiary bombs is to call on men to face an experience which is outside all human experience hitherto. I have seen something of it, and it makes me feel very humble when I compare anything that I could have hoped to do myself with the achievements of these men.
The sooner we have the Bill, and the sooner it is in operation, the better. I heard with some misgiving the Home Secretary's statement that there was a great deal of work to be done and that it would require some time before it came into operation. There are some things which, I believe, can be done the moment it is passed. Some of us are familiar with what has been done by the Regional organisations. We know the immense development that there has been. The


Bill is to transfer the conditions for righting a skirmish into those for fighting a battle on a large scale. One of the difficulties that have arisen is that of employing mutual assistance schemes to the best possible advantage. Unless you have them under some sort of unified command, as the Bill proposes, you are bound to have divergencies of view as to the number of firemen and appliances which can be sent from one district to another and as to the amount which different authorities will release. With unified command all difficulties of that kind will be combed out and dealt with, without the expenditure of undue time and labour.
We are all familiar with the fire-fighting service in peace-time, when the local fire chief sallied forth with a dozen or 20 brave men and dealt with a fire, very often quite adequately. To-day that same man is called upon to deal with fires on an enormously larger scale, to direct operations in a number of places, to be prepared to receive reinforcements and, moreover, to take decisions of the utmost consequence. He has to decide, if his resources are unequal to the task, which buildings he shall attempt to save and which he shall not. Up to now we have been working too much with a platoon commander in place of a brigadier or a corps commander, and that is the essential thing which the Bill will deal with.
A few words have been said in the Debate about the relation of the Bill to the Act of 1938. It is not, perhaps, a matter of immediate consequence, but it is a matter of considerable importance. We propose being wise after the event. Being wise after the event is generally treated with disparagement, but I can never understand why, because it is better to be wise after the event than never to be wise at all. What does it mean except that we are prepared to profit by our experience and better information? My hon. Friend the Member for Derby said that this Bill might take the place of the Act of 1938, but that is not the case. This is an emergency Measure which will live a life which is coterminous with the Emergency Powers Act. I think that all will admit now that it would have been better if, in considering the 1938 Act, we had adopted the recommendation of the River-dale Committee and had the Regional board which was recommended by them but was not accepted by the Home Office

or the House. It may well be, as the Home Secretary suggested, that this body would have had certain disadvantages, but nevertheless it would have been better than the organisation under which we have been working. I listened with interest and agreement to the observations which my right hon. Friend made on the subject of representative government against nominated bodies. I hope that in all these matters in which we have delegated authority to Regional Commissions —matters of health, finance and fire fighting—we will not neglect and forget what we have learned during the war as to the advantages of Regional organisation. There are many lessons to be learned, and I cannot think that there are not some which would be most important for the fire-fighting services which it would be wise to embody in those services when we come back to the times of peace.
This is, of course, an emergency Bill. It is a very small Bill in number of words to deal with such an immense and complicated matter. I take it that the effective part of the Bill is in the first paragraph of the first Clause, under which my right hon. Friend and his organisation can do practically anything which they judge to be for the benefit of the fire-fighting services. I would like to ask whether under that provision they have in mind the rapid completion of the arrangements for dealing with additional water supplies, more particularly from the riversides. When the last return was made expenditure for that purpose was several hundred pounds in arrear in respect of the amount authorised and this is urgently required to be made good. I take it that under this paragraph the Home Office will be able to deal with matters of that kind. I should also like to ask whether the Home Office are satisfied that there is not in the Services to-day a considerable number of trained firemen who are performing duties which are not in the service brigades but are of a comparatively unimportant character. I am aware of the steps which have been taken to withdraw from the Services men qualified in fire-fighting, but it is not an uncommon experience with me, and, I think, with others, to find that there are men doing duties in the Army, such as orderly duties, barrack-room duties and things of that kind, who might be doing better service in the fire-fighting force at home. I had a call the


other day from a man who was a London fireman, who described his day in the barrack and camp, and who wants to join his comrades in the fire brigade and to help them in the real work in which they are engaged. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider whether we are making the best use of the trained firemen we have in the country.
We have an immense asset in the firemen and the auxiliary firemen who have been taking part in this battle up to now. Parliament owes it to them to deal promptly with difficulties that arise and to set in train the best possible form of organisation which will enable their efforts to be brought to bear with the greatest possible speed. That is a matter of justice to them as well as of safety to the nation. We are hoping for great things for the development of the fire services from the fire-watchers who are coming forward. I believe that we shall make a great advance, belatedly it is true, but there can be no greater encouragement either to Parliament in seeking to help this organisation or to the multitude of fire-watchers who are coming forward to do their duty than the example which is shown to them by those who have been fighting up to the present too much alone.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am sorry that the Minister is not here, and if I say anything in criticism of him, I hope he will forgive me, but it will be well-meant criticism. We have heard to-day a sort of inquest on what to me and to most of us is a great failure, a great national failure, which does no credit to any citizen of the country, and certainly does no credit to the head of a great State Department or to his predecessor. I do not always agree with the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) but I cannot help agreeing with her in her comparison between the way in which the Home Secretary's Department is "being treated and the way in which the Air Force, the Army, or the Navy would be treated if they had had similar failures to their discredit. It is a very proper comparison. I am confident that not only in this war already, but in all wars, when failures of this magnitude have occurred, someone has had to go. The comparison with the military operation cannot be bettered,

although it breaks down here and there. It is not comparable in one particular respect. When the Army had to expand to meet the needs of this war it had to deal with Territorial units and commands in different parts of the country which had similar ideas and objects. In the present instance, however, we find, as has been stressed over and over again to-day, 1,400 or more different ideas and different authorities. The comparison of the expansion of the Army with the expansion of the fire-fighting forces is not, therefore, quite accurate.
It is not possible to judge what will come out of this scheme until we have seen the Regulations. I have great hopes that they will be very helpful. If the public and this House had before them the reports from the cities which have been attacked by the enemy, and have suffered so seriously from fire, it is safe to say there would be a very grave public outcry. Fire which is not under control is, perhaps, the greatest enemy, certainly the greatest destroyer, known to man, and yet we have dealt with it in this comparatively light-hearted manner. But far be it from me to withhold praise, and the highest praise, from those who have been struggling for so long against a rotten, mediaeval system. The hon. Member who spoke from the Liberal benches never said a truer word than that we who have not been taking part in this actual battle ought to withhold criticism as far as possible, because anybody who goes round in daylight, after the danger is over, and can realise what has been happening during the night, with high explosive bombs succeeding the incendiaries, has no right to sit down and draw up a series of criticisms from an air-raid shelter.
At the same time, it is necessary to criticise, because in this war, in some queer way, crime and fire have combined to put us all to shame, for the reason that we were not ready. Great inroads have been made on the national wealth because of our mediaeval methods of fire prevention and fire fighting, and I say respectfully that many lives have been sacrificed unnecessarily. Worst of all, we have to remember what the world says about it. We have lost national buildings, from cathedrals and abbeys to lesser gems of architecture, which were really the property of the civilised world, and that civilised world is rightly indignant and


filled with sorrow. To me, that is a very notable aspect of the situation. Excepting our relentless enemy, there is no nation in the world, probably, which does not deplore the frightful damage which has been done to our cathedrals and abbeys, as a result, very largely, if one is to believe the reports and letters in the Press, of inadequate fire-fighting and fire-prevention methods. There has been no ordered retaliation against fire. No reasonable person can withhold his praise of those who have stood up so wonderfully to what has happened, but I have come into contact with a number of people, some of them in this House and others whose views have been expressed through the Press, who are very impatient indeed with the delays of the Home Office. Sometimes they are the victims of their own ancient systems. There have been the objections raised on the part of the controllers of fire brigades, ranging from brilliantly-efficient fire-fighting units to those who are nothing more than museum pieces. When some time ago I called for the centralising or combining of fire-fighting units I was told that the local authorities would be up in arms against it. But it is a great deal better that they should be up in arms than up in flames, as they have been, and I would remind the House of what Dr. Johnson once said, that nothing would ever be attempted if all possible objections had first to be overcome.
Therefore, I am delighted, knowing the hard work which has been put in by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and others, that we really are making progress. The Minister himself well knows the discreditable confusion and shortcomings from which we have suffered. He has seen all the reports. I have only had the opportunity of moving about the country and meeting people who have been interested in this matter or directly concerned. There have been cases of a fire brigade looking on at a fire and not going to the help of a neighbouring brigade. It is all very well to say that one local authority has never refused to help another. I agree that it is inconceivable that they should refuse to help, but it is certainly open to proof that brigades have not gone over the borders of their own areas to help in another area because they had not had orders to do so. That has happened in a good many instances. The

personnel of brigades have been totally uncared for—the Home Office knows this perfectly well—and their equipment has been totally inadequate. The spirit and the courage have been there, but we have not made use of it.
Now I should like to say a word or two about the terms of this enabling Bill as far as I understand it. There does not seem to be any provision for what I should call a central council. I hope there will not be what I should call a commander-in-chief of the fire service, because that is not necessary. We should, however, have something better than the fire fighting department in the Home Office. It has admirable personnel, who are hardworking people, but that is not sufficient. We must have something more on the lines of what the Air Force and the Army and the Navy possess, a sort of Board. We have heard of a consultative body which is to be set up among the local authorities. That is good in its way, but it is necessary to have some form of central council. Then the Minister said that fewer than 50 fire brigade units—call them what you will—will be set up, and how much better that system would be than the present one, with 1,400 units. I am not so sure about that. I know it is easy enough to criticise, but my own impression is that even 50 fire-fighting units will be too many, a great deal too many. I should like to see the number reduced, so as to fit in with the existing regional commissioners' areas.
I would respectfully remind the House, of what it already knows, that in almost every large conflagration that has taken place the dynamic, or running, water supply has been cut off. Several fires at which I have permitted myself to be an onlooker have been burning away merrily with not a drop of water played on them. The explanation was that high explosives had burst the water mains. Only last Saturday week, when London suffered so badly, there were hundreds of fires, some of them vast fires, burning at large and triumphant because there was no water with which to tackle them. I ask the House to press the Home Secretary to proceed at once with the provision of what I call static water supplies. It might take some time to provide the necessary equipment, but there need not be enormous delay. Glancing round the Chamber in which we are meeting, I have come to the conclusion that it would


hold comfortably 500,000 gallons of water. That would be a nice lot of water with which to fight a fire. If we provided numbers of reservoirs of that size then a good supply of water would be available, even though the dynamic, or running, water supply had failed. Another suggestion is to flood basements which should be made water-tight.
Let me say a word about personnel. I ask the Home Secretary to make the most generous use of, and give the most generous treatment to, the Auxiliary Fire Service. He has told us of their numbers, and his statement was extremely interesting. There are, I understand, something like 80,000 full-time fire fighters, and, now, 150,000 part-time fire fighters. Let us make the most perfect fire-fighting service in the whole world. I advocate very strongly—although I know that the Army Council will probably not like my suggestion—that the Government should insist upon making the full use of the Royal Engineers and of military units. As a naval officer I can tell the House that whenever fire broke out in any town or harbour of any foreign country which ships visited, a fire party was launched forthwith. It was the duty and the business of every man-of-war in His Majesty's Service to provide the best possible fire-fighting service that it could, although armed only with inadequate little pumps. Nevertheless, these tire-fighting parties had plenty of courage, plenty of ropes, and plenty of good will. They did admirable work. It would be good training for military units, even to have to face the danger, and they would be providing plenty of assistance to the fire-fighting organisation.
Improve the fire watching. When any attack takes place on London there are grave and well-merited complaints about the lack of proper fire watching in many districts. I would press the Government also on the subject of bringing pressure to bear, and prosecution, upon property-owners. Property-owners know all about this. Unless this House deals very severely with property-owners who clear out and leave their premises locked, we shall go on having terrible losses. I beg the Home Secretary to go ahead with this great and splendid enterprise, and above all things, to set up a thoroughly sound central body, a sort of board of fire ser-

vice, for the whole country, and thus bring to an end a state of things which has really not been to our national credit.

Commander King-Hall: To begin with I would support two of the points made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. I agree with him that, on the face of it, 40 to 50 fire brigades appear still to be on the large side. I recognise that this is a matter on which one should have technical knowledge which is not at my disposal, if one is to form a reliable opinion, but I hope that, before any decision is finally made, further consideration will be given to these numbers, with the object of getting nearer to the size of the Army commands throughout the country, and the regional commissioners, or at any rate to having a system of loose grouping among the 40 or 50 brigades.
The second point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made was that more use should be made of military resources. Much can be done with advantage to the country and to the services themselves in that way. It is not unfair to say that, up to fairly recent times, we have had the rather extraordinary situation of an Army unit lying apprehensively in its billets at night wondering whether it would be adequately protected against enemy invasion by the Town Clerks of England. I do not wish to say a word of criticism about local government, which, nevertheless, was not designed to tackle this problem. Since 1938 I have said that local government was not designed by God or man to tackle the problems of total war, and I am still of that opinion. I do not think it is fair to expect local government to tackle the kind of problem that total war has brought upon us. It is not in any spirit of criticism of the efforts of local government or personnel that I say that, but because I feel that the matter Has become a military operation which must be dealt with along military lines. As in the past we found it necessary to take the management of the Royal Navy out of the hands of the burgesses of the Cinque Ports and make the Navy into an organised national Service, so the time has come when we must take this service of fire fighting out of the hands of bodies which were not designed to deal with it. It is unfair to expect them to deal with it.
The principles embodied in the Bill must receive the, whole-hearted approval of anyone who has practical experience of the disadvantages to national security inevitable in the system with which the Bill will deal. The Bill does not seem to go far enough, but, as far as it goes, it is on the right lines, in dealing with this battle of the flames. The Government have decided to centralise and coordinate the fire-fighting service, but I still wonder whether it is sufficiently realised that success in this battle of the flames demands an approach to fire fighting which is fundamentally different from that which prevailed in fire-fighting services before the war. Professionals were then engaged more in fire fighting than in fire prevention. The attitude of a professional fireman was that, if he were shown a big blaze, he would go and put it out, even at the risk of his life. All that is now altered. And here may I add my testimony to that of those who have paid tribute to the magnificent work of our firemen, both the professionals and the A.F.S. But just as we have discovered in medicine and other things that prevention is better than cure, so we have learnt from the German fire blitz that proper means of fire prevention are complementary to fire fighting.
It is better if we can arrange matters so that fire brigades, with all their apparatus, are not called into action, but are like Army reserves which have not been called into action because the advanced units have mastered the enemy. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has been placed in charge of fire fighting. I hope she realises that it is her duty to be the Dr. Marie Stopes of the fire world. What we want is birth control of these fires. That is why I regret that no provision is made in the Bill for fire watching and fire prevention. It may be that because I am inexperienced in navigating the tortuous channels of Parliamentary draftsmanship I have been misled. But there are Clauses in the Bill in which the Secretary of State is given power to make regulations for
any other matters which appear to him to be necessary or expedient …with a view to improving the arrangements for fighting fire
In my innocence I should have thought that that would cover regulations for fire watching and fire fighting, and in

Clause 2 (3 f) fire personnel is again defined as
any other person employed in any such capacity connected with the fighting of fires as may be specified in that behalf in regulations under this Section.
When I read that I thought it meant personnel for fire watching, and it certainly seems to me to cover it, but in paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Bill I read that the right to transfer fire personnel does not apply to personnel employed part time or without remuneration, which seems to show that fire watchers, who chiefly fall within that category, are excluded from the operation of the Bill. I gather, however, from what I have heard in this Debate that the Bill is not intended to cover problems of fire watching and fire prevention.
If that be the case, it seems to me that what we are discussing may be likened to a measure intended to unify and coordinate a number of privately-owned battleships into a battle fleet for the exercise of sea-power, but doing nothing about arrangements for cruisers, destroyers, reconnaissance aircraft and coast watchers. Or, to take the analogy into the air, it is as if we were dealing here with the co-ordination of certain aircraft but saying nothing about the observer corps, searchlights, or the balloon barrage. It seems to me that the fire brigades all over the country which this Bill will coordinate into a national fire service ought to be intimately connected with the fire-watching and fire-prevention services in the areas in which they work, just as a battle fleet lying in its base is intimately connected with the web of patrols and so forth which lie between it and the enemy.
I will give only one example of the type of thing which should not be allowed to continue. Within two miles of where we are now assembled there is a large block of flats tenanted by about 600 tenants. After many efforts, some 40 of these volunteered to do fire watching. The majority of the volunteers are young girls and women, most of whom are employed in Government offices during the day—and in passing I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by the women of England and to the way in which they have gone out and tackled incendiary bombs. The management of this building pays a woman of 65 to organise the fire services, but according to my information


have not otherwise been very helpful. The fire watchers found the roof of the building a mass of pipes, and since it is surrounded by only a low parapet they asked for these pipes to be painted white so that they should not trip over them in the darkness and fall eight storeys to the ground. But it was very difficult to persuade the management to paint the pipes white. It seems to me that this system is unsatisfactory and in every way inefficient, and that it is a matter of particular concern to the fire brigade which is going to operate in that district. I assume that the man in charge of the fire brigade will have in front of him a roof map of the area, and I hope I am not assuming too much in thinking that such a roof map is available in all our towns. In such a case he ought to be able to feel that in that building he has a strong point, so that in the case of a blitz he would not have to bother to concentrate his efforts there but could pay attention to other areas of a more vulnerable character. The fire brigade chief in that area is, therefore, directly affected by the inefficient and unsatisfactory state of affairs in that building.
I conclude by saying that this Bill is a good Bill as far as it goes, but that it only covers half the problem. The reforms which will arise from this Measure will fall far short of what they might be—indeed, of what they have got to be—so long as we leave fire watching and fire prevention in their present haphazard condition.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I agree with the last speaker that this Bill does not tackle the whole problem and that a great deal more attention ought to be paid at a very early date to the problem of the prevention of fires. I think there may also be some difficulty, when this Bill is passed, in connection with the link which exists at present in many districts between the street fire patrols and the fire brigades. These street fire patrols arose spontaneously; they were not brought into existence by any action of the Government, but sprang up as a result of the spontaneous action of neighbours who wanted to do something. An attempt was made at first to link them up with the ordinary wardens' organisation, but in some districts that was not too successful and it became necessary to link them

up with the fire brigades. From the moment when they were linked up with the fire brigades they began to be more useful and more enthusiastic. They felt that they were part of the fire brigade and were very proud of it. I wonder therefore whether the passing of this Bill, which takes the fire brigades away from local authorities, will break the link which exists between fire patrols and the fire brigades.
Another point I should like to mention is this. One hon. Member spoke of trying to visualise the amount of water which could be contained in the room in which we are now meeting, and said he thought it would contain half a million gallons of water, which would be enough to put out a very decent fire. It may be of interest to the House, and can be of no value to the enemy, to know that frequently, in recent raids, the Metropolitan Water Board has used 100,000,000 gallons of water during one night. It is a truism to say that fires cannot be put out without plenty of water, and it is equally true to say that when an air attack takes place water mains are bound to be damaged. I do not propose to say how many water mains have been broken in the London area during the blitz, but I can say that the number is considerable and that it naturally interfered with the fire services. Over99 per cent. of the water mains are now in action again, which I think is a tribute to the efficiency of the people handling them.
That brings me to my next point. Outside the London area the supply of water has in some places been left in the hands of private companies who sell water for their own private profit. At this time the Home Office ought to be doing a great deal to see that adequate supplies are available in those areas. It is generally difficult in the summer months for many of these privately owned water companies to supply enough water for drinking and domestic purposes, apart from fire fighting. The Home Office ought to be bestirring itself now to see that these companies are making adequate storage arrangements for the coming months. If they are not storing every gallon of water they can get hold of, it will be a very serious thing for them in the months of June, July, August and September.
I do not appreciate the necessity for taking the Bill through all its stages in one


day. Many of the things which it provides for have been done for many months past. I was in Birmingham on the: day of its first blitz, and on the following morning I saw brigades from Bristol, Bath, and Manchester operating in the area. Even then—last October or November—something of the kind which this Bill envisages was going on. In my district, which is outside the area of the London County Council, for every large fire that we have had at the docks, the London Fire Brigade has been present. The London Fire Brigade has been to Southampton and to Birmingham. I do not say that this Measure is not very urgent; but I do not think it is so urgent that we should have to take all its stages in one day, so that many important points cannot be adequately discussed.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be a great deal of feeling aroused locally—as far as I have any influence to prevent it, there will be none aroused In my area—for the fire service is one of the services of which the people have been most proud, and it will be a wrench to see it go out of their own control. Many will resent having to pay 75 percent. of the cost without having any voice, for some time to come, in the control. The right hon. Gentleman might answer what may be a very simple question, whether the 75 percent. of the cost will be 75 percent. of the cost in a normal year? I hope that it will not be 75 percent. of the cost in, say, last year. I think it will be necessary, in order to find a normal year, to go back to 1937, before the A.F.S. was set up.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the battle of the flames can best be fought under national direction, but I hope that he is not going to interfere too much with brigades which are efficient—as most of them are—and that he will not make any unnecessary changes. An analogy has been drawn, over and over again in this discussion, between the fire brigade and the Army; but the fire brigades and the Army are entirely different propositions. If the right hon. Gentleman envisages moving large numbers of men in the fire services from one locality to another—and his speech gave me that impression—I hope he will think a long time before he does so. If he really is going to move men, perhaps he will move single men first.

This war has torn up the roots of most people's lives, but there is no reason why Parliament should do more of that sort of thing than is absolutely necessary. There are many excellent officers and men in the fire brigades who have settled homes in their own localities, and they will take it badly if they are to be uprooted. I know that they will be no worse off than many other people, but we should not make that tendency worse than we can help.
What is to happen to the fire brigade committees of the local authorities? Does the right hon. Gentleman wish them to go out of business altogether or to continue in more or less shadow form, ready for the time when they will be able to take up again the work which, in the national interest, they are now giving up? There will be very little for them to do, but there will be something; for instance, there will be the street-watching patrols, under the Fire-Watching Order. At present, the local authority is charged with the responsibility of prosecuting under the Fire-Watching Order, but the local authority depends upon information from the officers of the fire brigades. It is these officers who report whether fire-watching is being adequately carried out and who recommend to the town clerk whether proceedings should be taken. It will be very difficult for an officer to do will at when he is no longer in the position of accepting orders from the local authority.

Mr. H. Morrison: That system is not universal. The duty is frequently associated with the wardens' service, with which, indeed, it has a considerable analogy. I do not think that there will be any difficulty about that.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I leave the point there, but I think it needs clarifying. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear—he did not do so to-day—whether it is his desire that the fire brigade committees of the local authorities shall go out of business altogether.
I would like to speak about the fire department of the Home Office. I think the right hon. Gentleman should take the opportunity of this Measure to overhaul that organisation thoroughly. There are people there—I do not say this in any unkind sense—who are known as "good old has-beens" They have been fine fire officers in the past,


but they are now, after having been superannuated for some considerable time, giving orders to people who, having been in the thick of the vast fires of the past 12 months, must know a great deal more than they do about the special measures which will be necessary. To give one instance, there has been during the past 12 months a failure to provide adequate feeding arrangements for firemen at large fires. People who have had experience of these fires are more likely to understand how to make the necessary arrangements. Nobody sitting in an office can be expected to devise the necessary plans. I would ask my right hon. Friend to look into the matter to see whether, in view of the remarkable experience of many of these officers and men, he could not get many of them to help to strengthen the fire department of the Home Office, preferably to supplement present officers.
There is a suggestion in an article in one of the leading papers to-day dealing with this Bill with which I profoundly disagree. It is that the right hon. Gentleman, in choosing the executive officers and those whom he will need in order to carry out the work of the service, should call upon the Army and the Navy. I am sure that he wants the Bill, and wants it to work efficiently without any trouble, but if he intends to appoint Army and naval officers to principal positions in connection with this work, he will be making trouble, and trouble there will be. I will not follow up that point further beyond saying that some of the criticism of the Bill to-day has been rather misplaced. It has not taken into account the circumstances of the first 10 or 12 months of the war, and of the year before war broke out, and the terrific task that has faced the service. It has not visualised the fact that there were thousands of young men who volunteered right back to Munich time to build up this fire service. After doing a whole day's work, they worked in the black-out, dragging hoses about and climbing ladders, and kept on night after night during the whole of the winter. That fact has not been taken into consideration. At the time many Members of this House sneered at the kind of thing that they were doing, and there was a cry from the newspapers, and the military authorities proceeded to drag these men into the Army as quickly as possible. It has been

a job to get any of them out of it. The men who went through all that, and who have been through the fire fighting ever since are those from whom my right hon. Friend will have no difficulty in getting experienced and efficient men who will make excellent officers. I therefore recommend, not only the officers and men of professional fire brigades, but also those of the auxiliary fire brigades. These brigades are an excellent field from which to obtain officers, rather than incur the risk of causing bad feeling by putting Army and naval officers at the head of these brigades who perhaps know nothing about fire fighting whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is to set up a consultative body of local authorities with experience:, knowledge and good will. I do not know whether it would be possible also to include representatives of officers and of men, but, better still, I would like to see him set up a joint industrial council consisting of the Home Office and the representatives of the men's organisations. The success of the Bill, as we all realise, will depend partly upon the Regulations. We do not know what they will be, and it is therefore difficult to discuss the matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend, before the Debate finishes, will be able to give an assurance that there will be no reduction of wages or worsening of conditions in the fire services. There is a fear—I do not know why—that an attempt may be made, where the conditions are good, to bring them down to the level of the conditions that are less good. An assurance that there will be no reduction of wages or worsening of conditions will be helpful.
The last point that I want to make is that of the question of a disciplinary code. Some authorities have had a disciplinary code. I understand that the London County Council has not had one up to now.

Mr. H. Morrison: It has one now.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Some authorities have had a code which has worked fairly well, but only because an assurance has been given that any of the men dissatisfied with punishment meted out to them by the officer shall have the right of an appeal to the local Civil Defence committee. What I and other people are afraid of is that, if you have a disciplinary code, you


may try to militarise the fire brigade. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not going to do that. Everyone knows that many of the severe sentences passed by the Army are out of all proportion to the offences committed. I hope that the kind of sentences about which we are accustomed to hear in the Army will not be allowed to enter into the fire brigade service. I hope also that a disciplinary code will provide for some other method, and that when a man commits an offence and is to be punished his wife and children shall not be penalised through money being stopped from his pay. If there must be a disciplinary code—and personally I think there must—opportunity ought to be provided for rewarding men when they do exceptionally well. There ought to be some form of proficiency award.
I should like to see my right hon. Friend give some attention to the question of efficiency pay. I am sure that the House will expect that one of the earliest things he will seek to do when the Bill becomes law will be to see that the pensions and disability allowances granted to firemen are at least equal to those in the Armed Forces. Nobody will ever be able to understand the logic or reason, if there is any at all, why a soldier who is severely injured or incapacitated for life should be treated better than the fireman who is inside a building when a bomb explodes and is injured and perhaps incapacitated for life. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will give his early attention to that question to see that the disability pensions and allowances for sickness, illness and accident to men belonging to the national fire service shall be at least on the same level as those granted to members of the Services.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I want to draw attention to one matter, and I think I can best illustrate it in the following manner. During the last big night blitz on London in one street alone, there were 14 houses that were affected by fire, and 50 percent. of these were burnt out, for the trouble was that when entry was made into these houses though a certain amount of sand was available, that was all soon used up, and subsequently those who tried to put out those fires were powerless, because these houses being unoccupied have been left without any water whatever—turned off

at the main and baths empty. Compulsory powers should be given to local authorities and possibly to the Metropolitan Water Board to allow them to enter houses which are unoccupied in order to see whether proper precautions have been taken for the prevention of fire. The difficulty they are now up against is this: occupiers have gone away and have taken no precautions. At present it is illegal for local authorities to enter such houses subsequent to an air raid. On some occasions local authorities have tried to get hold of the occupiers' keys and have been unable to do so, and I would ask the Minister whether it is intended that compulsory powers should be given to local authorities to enable them to enter empty houses without keys and without permission. At the moment every consideration is being given to those who have left London and their houses while no consideration is being given to those who remain in London, and I do suggest it is important that power should be given to local authorities to enable them to enter houses prior to raids to see whether baths and other receptacles have been properly filled with water. Incidentally this would entail far less strain on fire brigades because at the moment they are being called to put out fires that could easily have been extinguished if only the occupiers of the houses concerned had left behind them an adequate supply of water. I hope I shall hear from the Minister whether he intends in this Bill or subsequently to take powers for this purpose.

Mr. Ritson (Durham City): I have been rather interested in this Debate because of my connection, in my younger days, with fife fighting. I can assure my right hon. Friend that he need not worry too much about what editors and their newspapers say. I think editors are far more concerned about sitting in front of a comfortable fire than fire fighting. If we depend on them for fire fighting, or anything else, believe me, we are wasting our time. As regards comparing this period with the days of peace no one with any common sense would suggest that the two periods are in any way alike. This is the most violent form of warfare we have ever had in this country. All the new avenues of fire fighting which we have recently explored have developed from our experiences of the last few weeks.
In my own town, the Works Committee, on which I sat for many years after I was a fireman, have always made our firemen as important as our police. We believe that they are entitled to the same conditions, wages and pensions as the police. I have always taken a keen interest in seeing that this was done and I hope the Home Secretary will realise that a fireman, imbued with the spirit of fighting flames is as useful as any policeman can be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) started off with a real onslaught against the Home Secretary, but then the mild nature which I know so well asserted itself and his criticism fizzled out before he got very far. However, I can assure the House that there is nothing to be ashamed of in the work that local authorities and firemen have done in fighting this new form of warfare. I am pleased that the fire services are to be taken over by the State.
I will not mention the name of the town in which I live, although I do not think "Haw Haw" will worry very much whether I live or not. We had an experience the other day of the sort of jealousy which I believe this Bill will eradicate. In a certain part of the North of England some important industrial plant took fire and our fire brigade went to do their best to put out the flames. In the meantime, "Jerry" dropped a few bombs on us which caused no end of trouble, as the majority of our firemen were away. The question people asked was, "Where is our fire brigade? Why have we lent our men to such and such a place?'' People must realise that the fire service has been built up for the purpose of helping one's neighbour as well as oneself. I saw some criticism the other day about using a river as a source of water supply, and I appreciate what my right hon. Friend said with regard to the cutting of water mains. In one of the largest fires in the provinces, in which I had to take part, we used hoses which were so worn that the water came out in every place but the nozzle. Interfering people tried to help us as they thought we could not manage the job and I remember that somebody turned the nozzle under my nose so that I could not breathe properly for hours afterwards. It is not the fault of firemen if a main is

destroyed by a bomb. It is a serious thing for them. What we had to do on that occasion was to get to the river and hope the Home Secretary will see that the best use is made of the River Thames. It never struck us until we had to use the river that it could be so useful. I will never forget the added pressure that was given to us by the 12 ft. tide.
Any fireman knows that the most effective fire can be most effectively tackled immediately after it breaks out. The hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) brought birth control into the question. I certainly agree that the best way to fight a fire is to get it at quickly. What matters at a fire is the force of the water, and on the occasion to which I have referred, when the thing began to pump at 2,000 gallons a minute, we soon finished the fire. I hope the Home Secretary will see that the fire-fighting power of the river craft is at his disposal, because even if these craft cannot pump directly to the fire, they will always be able to pump the water to a place where it can be collected and applied to the fire. With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), I do not know of any body of people more jealous of their rights than the firemen are. They have served a long time and their practice and experience gives them a claim above anybody else. I believe that the Army ought to do its job and confine itself to its job. I have never believed in Army or Naval chief constables, and much less do I believe in Army or Naval fire brigade chiefs. Their job is not to fight fires, but to fight the enemy. With regard to the collection of water at places where it may be required, a long time ago I prophesied that in many parts of the country there would be difficulties, particularly in rural areas. Deep pools of water ought to be made and supplies placed in appropriate spots, so that the fire can be tackled immediately, before it grows.
I am glad this scheme has been introduced. All the small jealousies, local and otherwise, will be eliminated, because everybody will feel that he is fighting a great national issue. We have to fight the enemy and we have to fight the flames. I am convinced that the local authorities, particularly the watch committees, who


now understand what has to be done and who know that it is in the national interest and that it is only for the period of the war that their powers will be taken from them, will co-operate whole-heartedly. I am convinced that not only the fire brigades and their personnel, but the management of the watch committees and fire committees, will willingly give their assistance and experience to the State as they have given it to the local authorities. We ought to give all encouragement to them. Let us get on with the job, and let us have a useful and determined combined force of men and women prepared to stand up against the enemy, whether flames or men. I am convinced that the country is determined to protect from fire both people and property.

Mrs. Hardie: No one wishes to criticise unduly a Bill which has for its purpose efficient fire fighting, but there is a fear among certain local authorities that instead of the Bill making the services more efficient in their particular areas, it may make them less efficient. This might happen in an area where they have spent time and money in building up what they consider to be a very efficient fire service. Apart from the financial arrangements, which are, of course, subject to negotiations, I understand there is a fear that an efficient fire service, by being spread over a big area, may become less efficient in a certain area. I raise the matter because I would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with it. There is a fear that because other districts have been lax when they ought not to have been, and have not had their fire services properly prepared, the efficient areas may suffer. The city a part of which I represent has the feeling that it has done everything possible to make its fire services efficient, and it fears that some of its equipment may be moved away into other areas where better preparations ought to have been made. I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will explain that matter. As the Bill is an enabling Bill, it does not give many details, and we do not know exactly what body will be set up to deal with the services. Naturally, many of us hate to see power taken away from an elected body and given to a nominated body, but if my right hon.

Friend will explain exactly how matters will work in that connection, he will be doing us a service. I think that, even more than the financial position, the point that is worrying many of us in Glasgow is whether that city will be as well protected under the new arrangements as under the old arrangements.

Mr. Buchanan: The Government having decided to bring forward this Bill, I feel it would be foolhardy for anybody to oppose it. Once the Government, having examined the problem and considered every aspect of it, have come to the conclusion that the scheme contained in the Bill is the best way of fighting fires at this time, I feel that any Member who dared to oppose the Bill would be taking a greater responsibility than he was entitled to take. It may well be that this scheme should have been introduced at an earlier stage. That criticism is always made against everybody who attempts to do anything. It ought to have been done earlier, but now that it is being done, the Government ought to have the credit for it. I want to refer to the matter from the point of view of the city of Glasgow. Many of us who belong to that city believe that in many things we are efficient. Most of our social services have been run in an efficient way, and I think the fire service there compares well with any in the country, whether run under State management or local management.
I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that transferring the management of the fire services from a local authority to the State will not in itself make for efficiency unless there are efficient people to manage the services and run them. It may make the general level, in an area more efficient, but at the same time ft may lower the efficiency in a given place. In other words, we might raise the general average of the services but lower the services given in a particular area. One of the things which slightly worries us is the question of the Regional Commissioners. The City of Glasgow contains one quarter of the population of Scotland and is possibly more densely populated than any other area in Britain. Glasgow have provided as good a machinery for their fire services as any other part of the country, but they fear that in time of crisis, by this arrangement of committees, decisions may be pushed


from one person to another. I hope and trust that whoever is responsible will see that some body or authority is set up which can act and, if it fails to act, can be subject to proper criticism.
I do not think the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) made a speech which was a laughing matter. The events in Plymouth have been terribly serious. I have seen what can happen in my own native city, where we had two or three nights of blitz. When I consider that Plymouth has been visited far more times than that I can realise what Plymouth is like, and I cannot blame her if she feels bitter or angry about it. But I counsel her to show patience in her citicism of local authorities. Local authorities are not always good, but they are not always bad. I have crossed swords and hope to cross swords again with the Glasgow Town Council. In passing, although it does not arise on this Bill, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider the question of demolition. There is room for a good deal of criticism in this respect. The City of Glasgow has run a fire brigade with great credit. It has a proud record and has nothing to be ashamed of. The defence of this Measure is that if a town outside the Glasgow area has, through meanness, failed to provide an efficient fire brigade service, it would be wrong if that town were burning to say that it should not be helped. At all times we must mobilise our resources and safeguard life. I would point out to the Secretary of State for Scotland and he would be the first to admit it—that it would be unwise to neglect the administrative ability of a town which has successfully organised a fire brigade service for a population of 1,250,000. The details of the work have been mastered, and valuable experience has been built up.

Viscountess Astor: Is the Glasgow fire brigade under the supervision of a fireman or under the supervision of the police?

Mr. Buchanan: It is under the supervision of a fireman. Indeed, I think we brought him from the North-East coast, which only shows that we are not narrow in our view. We are the most tolerant part of the country. I wish people would learn toleration from us in Glasgow on the question of Sunday opening for

theatres and many other things. As I was saying, the fire-master and other members of the fire services in Glasgow have built up great experience. Here let me say that the question of fire services ought to be a national charge. From the nation's point of view, the firemen are just as important as the soldiers, sailors and airmen—indeed the Home Secretary has already said that. This pettifogging book-keeping entry of whether it is 75 per cent. or 25 per cent. is just nonsense. Whether the money is taken from the ratepayers in a particular locality or from the citizens of the country does not seem to matter because, to a great extent, it comes out of the same pockets.
I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to remember. Glasgow's history in this matter. I think that Glasgow can help the country at the present time. I do not wish to impede this Bill, but I ask, when the machinery is brought into operation, that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in pursuance of his duties, shall take into account the vast experience of the fire committee, fire-master and officials of Glasgow. The situation is very different in our part of the country, because whereas we have a quarter of the total population of Scotland in Glasgow, the rest of the population is scattered in small towns all over the country. I can imagine that in negotiations these towns may have almost the same rights to consultation as the great city of Glasgow. All I am asking is that the Glasgow fire service, with its knowledge, should not be set aside in that regard and that it should be given its proper place in any consultations that may take place.

Mr. Mathers: Before the Secretary of State intervenes, I should like to say a word from what I conceive to be the wide Scottish point of view. I am certain that the Bill will be favoured in Scotland. We have had indications that there are fire-fighting services which are claimed to be at least not inferior to those in any other part of the country. We are proud of that and we hope that the experience which has been gained will be fully used and blended into the new organisation. There was, however, on the part of some of my hon. Friends a certain amount almost of alarm at the statement that we were to have one of the Parliamentary Secretaries in the Home Office in London in the position of what


might be described as tire-fighting king of Great Britain, in the same way as his colleague is sometimes not unkindly described as "the Shelter Queen." I am glad to have that idea dispelled by a statement from the Home Secretary himself. I could conceive of nothing more calculated to lose the good will which I am certain will prevail in Scotland with regard to this Measure. We have felt this urge from the Southern part of Great Britain impinging upon our particular preserves to a very considerable extent, and I do not think I am saying anything out of place in indicating that, with a number of my hon. Friends, I have taken part in an effort to urge upon the Government the need for even greater Scottish authority in Civil Defence matters. The great bulk of the Civil Defence services are co-ordinated by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is what Scotland wants and expects, and I hope will always claim and receive, at the hands of any Government in London. To make a statement of that kind is not to indulge in sentimental nationalism. It is based upon hard-headed common sense arising out of the experience of getting things done effectively, as we consider it, by having authority in Scotland, and sometimes not so effectively by having to consider Ministers who are 400 miles away. Scotland has good experience to place at the disposal of those who will control this great new development, and I want to see that experience taken full advantage of.
Some references, rather vaguely praised by the Home Secretary, have been made to the question of advisory committees. I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland to be a little more explicit, if possible, about the advisory functions which will be performed, either centrally or in the Regions. I want to see them 5n the Regions as well as at headquarters. I want to see them properly manned. We are sometimes inclined to look upon advisory committees as merely an opportunity for providing some reward for services rendered. I do not want to see membership of these advisory bodies reserved for those who have been producing pious and platitudinous perorations on political platforms. I think they ought to be manned by those who have actual experience of this very important aspect of our civil defence.
When the Home Secretary made his statement a week ago I asked him if what

he was proposing involved the bringing into the State organisation of all the fire-fighting arrangements in the country. He indicated that that was not so, but that what was being nationalised was simply the local authority fire services. There ought to be at the very least provision for co-ordinating all the fire-fighting services in the country, making it an all-in service when it comes to a real emergency. I cited, for example, the case of the different Ministers who control fire-fighting arrangements. In respect of docks and railways the Minister of Transport is the responsible authority, in respect of shipyards the Admiralty, and where it is a question of factories the Home Office. The homes of the people come within the local authority purview under the Secretary of State for Scotland. If there happens to be a military depot, the War Office is responsible for the fire-fighting that has to be organised. I want to see, if the need arises, all those services, and the private fire brigades organised in factories and other places throughout the country, available for tackling fires that may come along, either through enemy action or in any other way. That may perhaps appear to be getting outside the scope of the Bill, which is looked upon as a purely war emergency Measure, but I take the view that we are taking a step forward in the organisation of fire fighting which will never be fully retracted. I do not see these services being taken back fully to local-authority control out of the hands of the State. I believe we are taking a step which future Governments will be well advised to continue.
There are one or two points that I should like to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have referred to the need for recognition of the trade unions, and I was glad of the reply that I got from the Home Secretary. I hope the Secretary for Scotland also can give us a definite guarantee that, as far as he is concerned, there will be full opportunity for the trade unions to make their representations in a proper and authoritative way. Arising out of that, naturally, there will be the question of what the payment of these men is to be. There is need to approximate the pay and other service conditions of the Auxiliary Fire Service men and those of the regular fire fighters. I hope that we may have some indication that that will be done. There is the possi-


bility under the new arrangement of men being taken from one area and transferred to another part of the country. Under the Essential Work Orders there is provision for appeals committees in respect of men being removed from their homes. Are any arrangements of this kind contemplated to meet the position of the fire fighters? Some of the points I have raised are detailed points that might better be examined later, but from the point of view of the principle of the Bill I feel sure that the House will give it a Second Reading very readily.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I promised that I would speak for only a few minutes, now I do not wish this Bill to be impeded one moment in its passage. I wish that the Home Secretary would treat criticism in a slightly less sensitive manner. I am one of those who have great admiration for, and have long championed, his administration in local government, but I want to put a question to him. Surely he has got this local Regional government question the wrong way. There has been a considerable body of agreement on his old side of the House, and there is no point in introducing a discussion about Gauleiters. The point is that there are certain services which can be better done in a larger area. I have served in London local government and have a great respect for it and for the whole democratic process of local government. No one pretends, and he did not, that the best method of fire fighting can be achieved by local units. The Lord President of the Council, when he was Home Secretary, set up a flexible piece of machinery which could be easily moved in any direction. Six months ago I urged him in writing and privately to take action on these lines. I have had the privilege, if it is a privilege, of trying to see at first hand and to endure at first hand several of the blitzes. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has seen them too. It is not a question of having to rely on officials and of not having information coming up to him as Minister. He has been round himself, and I cannot understand why he has delayed so long. Has there been any opposition from the local authorities? Have the spokesmen who usually get up representing county councils and local authorities raised any objection?
I thought that my right hon. Friend would regard this whole matter from a larger view, and I am terribly disappointed. From previous remarks that he has made I thought that he would also tackle this problem speedily, bearing in mind its nature and utilising the past experience of local authorities. This is not a question of fighting against local authorities; it is a question of releasing new energies from them. In Scotland it is the same problem. As the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said, these small fire-brigade units do not easily fit in, even to a peace-time organisation. In view of what my right hon. Friend said that we would welcome a Debate on the larger aspects of Civil Defence, I appeal to the Government to let us have it, because the Prime Minister said to me to-day that he did not consider a radical change in the present chain of responsibility was necessary or desirable in present circumstances. I have a body of first-hand evidence to show that the position is very different and that the chain responsibility is cut up at a whole series of points. I have had many letters in the past few days from responsible people and from wives of Members of Parliament who are working on the spot. The chain of responsibility as far as fire is concerned has been proved to be inefficient.
Is it not much the same in the other services connected with Civil Defence? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers)said that the Secretary of State for Scotland has Civil Defence in his own hands. In the long run he may, but the Regional Commissioner has the immediate responsibility. As my right hon. Friend has been Regional Commissioner, I hope that he will be on top of his job; the answer he gave me to-day about the evacuation of neutral areas showed that he appreciated the problem. He has seen what has happened in the last fortnight. I understand that in one area of Scotland the Regional Commissioner went to the scene a week before and carefully examined arrangements on paper and said that everything looked to be all right. But paper arrangements are not the same as actual conditions. Is the Minister of Home Security certain that his machinery for circulating the best experience of different areas is in efficient order and working


properly? I asked this several months ago, and he said that he had in train the machinery for this purpose.

Mr. H. Morrison: We have always had it.

Mr. Lindsay: If that is so, I can only say that the machinery is not working very efficiently. What are the arrangements to be for co-ordinating fire watching and fire fighting? The present arrangements are both shocking and disgraceful. I am part of a team in London, and I have seen time after time fires with which we were incapable of dealing because there were not sufficient people to guard the buildings. What sort of person will the Regional staff officer be? It is important to know what his status will be. Will he or the Regional Commissioner be responsible for co-ordinating the fire-fighting arrangements of different bodies which come under other Departments? I understand that some have efficient arrangements to deal with their own buildings, and no doubt they have a good bit of equipment too.
I had hoped that the Home Secretary would say that he had all the organisation under the Bill ready and that he had waited to bring in the Bill at the last moment, so that it could be put into operation as soon as the Bill was passed. Can the Secretary of State give us some idea how quickly the leaders can be obtained? We want men of personality and leadership. Are there the schools or extra facilities for training, which is very important? Is there the standardisation of equipment? I will not press that point, because there are some things which, in the interests of home security, none of us wishes to say. Are these matters going to be dealt with more speedily and efficiently, because this Bill could have been brought in any day, except for the necessity of getting the local authorities behind it? I appeal, therefore, to the Secretary of State for Scotland to see that it is put into operation with as little delay as possible.

Viscountess Astor: There are plenty of men in the Army and Navy who have shown real understanding of local problems and welfare. A quick way of getting the type of people whom the Minister of Home Security says that it will be difficult to get would be to take these men

out of the Services and put them quickly through a school for a month or two months. They represent the kind of person we want, someone who is used to command and knows how to handle people and who has what I call a comprehensive and understanding heart.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The Minister for Home Security cannot but feel gratification at the reception of this Bill. There have been criticisms, it is true, but they were not directed to the central principle of the Bill. Every speaker has welcomed its central principle. There have been two major criticisms directed against the Measure. The first concerned, what is not in it—some matters about fire-watching which could not be dealt with in this Bill. The second major criticism was that the Bill was belated, that though it was all right, it was too late. I am not so sure about that. The point has been made that my right hon. Friend and, to a lesser extent, the Secretary of State for Scotland could have minimised some of the blitzes which have taken place if this Bill had been in existence. I beg the Noble Lady not to believe it.

Viscountess Astor: Then what is the good of bringing it in?

Mr. Johnston: I listened with patience to the Noble Lady, and I beg her to listen to what we have to say in reply, the more so as we are greatly handicapped by security reasons in presenting our case for this Bill. Some hon. Members, including the Noble Lady, have rather overstepped the bounds of discretion, in my view. They took risks by specifying places, towns and incidents which might conceivably lead to further attacks there. Therefore, I must begin by saying that we are handicapped in specifying some of the outstanding reasons why this Bill has been introduced. The Noble Lady said the Bill was belated. I had one experience of severe incendiary bombing. If this Bill had been in existence, it would not have made twopence difference. On the first night of that bombing a lucky, or an unlucky, bomb hit a junction of a water main, and on the second night we could not get sufficient pressure of water to deal with the conflagrations. All the national organisation in the world could not have prevented what took place then. Further, it is not only this country


which has this problem. Only in this morning's papers we read of a German military leader, General Milch, pleading with the German people to line up in defence of German cities and towns against the terrible conflagrations which they are experiencing as a result of our air attacks. I endorse every word of what my right hon. Friend said about our local authorities. By and large, they have played their part splendidly. Many members of local authorities have died fighting these flames. Some of them have spent three days and three nights in giving service to the community by fighting flames. I yield to no one in my respect for the local authority system in this country, or in my determination to do everything I can to preserve local democracy against—I rather regret my hon. Friend's remark—the Gauleiter system.

Mr. Lindsay: I was only referring to what my right hon. Friend had said.

Mr. Johnston: I know, but as I understood my hon. Friend, he seemed to say that when you have the Gauleiter system—

Mr. Lindsay: I must make this clear. Whenever anyone mentions the Regional Commissioners it is said, "You are talking about Gauleiters," whereas it is only a question of illustration.

Mr. Johnston: I want to say that there is a fundamental difference between us here. So long as and to the extent that we can preserve local democracy, I propose to do everything I can to preserve it as against the Gauleiter, however he is called or with whatever powers he is entrusted. But I agree, and this Bill is evidence of it, that circumstances arise when old shireval and parish boundaries no longer fit the situation, and the Government would have been foolish not to recognise that changes in the fire-fighting system had got to come, and at the earliest possible moment, consistently with carrying with us the almost unanimous consent of the local authorities, because that is vital.

Viscountess Astor: You could have got that at any time.

Mr. Johnston: It is vital that we should get the general agreement of the people on the spot who know most about things.

But the time has come when there should be a general user—not a national ownership—of all the fire appliances and plant in the country with the sole object of dealing for the duration of the war with this menace from the sky. What is the problem which we have to face? Could the existing personnel and equipment be sufficiently expanded in the vulnerable and potentially vulnerable areas to deal with this menace? To the extent that we can expand them, that will be done, but there are questions of buildings, fire stations and training of personnel which cannot be dealt with successfully within the limits of the mutual-aid scheme which has been the basis of our fire-fighting arrangements up to now. Someone said earlier in this discussion that little had been done; as a matter of fact, a great deal has been done. We have multiplied equipment and personnel 15 to 20 times. That is a remark-able result to have achieved since the outbreak of the war. Moreover, we had a mutual-aid scheme—we have it in existence now, under the operational direction of the Regional Commissioner, whereby plant, equipment and personnel in regions A, B, C and D would be drafted in, as speedily as may be, to the assistance of any part of the country. That system is not enough. It has been found insufficient. Repeated blitzing of large towns has shown that the mutual-aid scheme is tending to break down Therefore it is the duty of the Government to come forward with the most practical proposals they can devise, and, with the good will of practically all the local authorities in the country, men who know most about the subject and who are fighting fires, to go forward with the Bill which we have now before us.
The hon. Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked me some specific questions about our arrangements in Scotland. We have not the same conditions to contend with there as our colleagues have in England. For example, in one-third of the counties, fire brigades are organised on a county basis. There is no similar or comparable organisation in England. We have some crofting counties which are exempted altogether from the operation of the Fire Brigades Act. We have geographical differences. We have one region; England is divided into a number


of regions. Fortunately, we have not had the same experience of intensive blitzing that some English areas have had to endure. If the Bill is passed we propose in Scotland, for the period of the war, to set up what I may call a Fire Service Commission. That Commission will be representative of men of experience who have the good will of the local authorities in Scotland. The chairman, whom I have asked and who has accepted the post as chairman, is Mr. Bryce Walker, who, for 15 years, was clerk to the Lanark County Council and who is the Scottish representative on the Fire Service Commission. We propose, in addition, to have assessors to sit with the Commission. I cannot give their names here because I have not yet received their agreement, but they will be men of experience in fire-fighting.

Mr. Lindsay: Technical experience?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, and they will have the confidence of the local authorities. One of the primary duties of this Fire Service Commission will be to consult with the local authorities.

Mr. Buchanan: How many members will be on the Commission?

Mr. Johnston: I am not sure about the number, but I think it will be about half-a-dozen.

Mr. Buchanan: And assessors in addition?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the assessors be full time?

Mr. Johnston: I do not want to be pressed as to the exact details to-day. It may be far better for them to continue supervising their present jobs as well. I do not want to be pushed into the precise details. The Fire Service Commission will consult with the burghs, cities and county councils. It will consult direct with the local authorities. That was the point on which the hon. Member for Springburn was exceedingly anxious. It will consult with the local authorities prior to the passage in this House of the Regulation which must be laid upon the Table in accordance with the Bill. In addition to that, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will still be able to consult with the local authorities in any case in which cordial

agreement has not been reached. Furthermore, we have already consulted with the associations representing all the local authorities in Scotland, and I do net think I am putting it too high to say that we have practically unanimous concurrence— with the exception of one doubtful authority— of all the small and medium size authorities.

Mr. Buchanan: What about the big ones?

Mr. Johnston: Among the big ones we have the concurrence of Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. I do not want to get on to that track. Generally speaking, we have their concurrence. It will not be for any lack of good will on our part if agreement is not reached and the matter goes forward unanimously, to fight this menace from the skies. I can understand the annoyance of an efficient local authority, but I put it that they stand to gain most. It is the efficient local authorities, which with the best will in the world could not build up their fire brigades to fight this kind of blitz, which will, in the vulnerable and semi-vulnerable areas, have the organised assistance of all the other fire brigades in Scotland, so that for all practical purposes the areas which will gain most are those situated in what, for want of a better term, I might call the Clyde Basin.
How long will this Bill take to come into operation? With good will, it may operate at once. Why should it not? There is no time to be lost; my right hon. Friend, I know, has his arrangements pretty well in hand, as we have in Scotland, and all that we are asking from the House this afternoon is this enabling Bill to give us power to make Regulations which will have to be laid on the Table of the House. We have given an assurance that we will meet the local authorities and try to reach agreement with them. Some points that have been raised this afternoon are really all but irrelevant to the Bill. There is the question of pensions for instance; that raises very many vital questions about all Civil Defence organisations which cannot be treated here as a side-line. Then the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) raised a very important point about feeding arrangements for fire brigades when they are drafted from one area to another. There is only one solution for that, and that is the mobile


canteen. You cannot possibly provide fixed restaurants in blitzed areas. They may in their turn be blitzed out of existence, and the only way in which we can feed these people successfully is by having power to send in not only equipment and personnel but also feeding facilities. We shall also have to see that when they get there there is an organising leader who can take command of all the various brigades, sent in to assist in putting out fires, because with the best will in the world there are always jealousies.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: The reason I raised that point was to stress my other point to the effect that in making executive appointments to this type of position it is essential to appoint people who have actually had experience. Proper arrangements could not be made by people who have only seen the fires or just read about them in the papers.

Mr. Johnston: I have no idea as to who will be the regional officers, but neither my right hon. Friend nor myself would willingly agree to the making of stupid appointments of persons who have had no previous experience of combating incendiarism, and whose only title would be that they had held some Army or Navy command. That, I think, is obvious. I would beg my hon. Friend and others to believe that our only purpose in bringing in this Bill is to combat fire, and that nothing would have induced us to take away any powers from the local authorities but sheer necessity. I therefore ask the House, on the ground of sheer necessity, to give my right hon. Friend and myself the powers asked for in this Bill. If we misuse them, if we fail to use them, we can be attacked in this House, but I can assure hon. Members that it is our intention first of all to get the co-operation and good will of the local authorities, and then to take every possible step in our power to see that the provisions of this Bill are used in the most effective way.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House — [Mr. Grimston.]

Further Proceeding postponed, pursuant to the Order of the House this Day.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the reorganisation and improvement of the fire services of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.) [Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Resolution reported, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this Day.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

CLAUSE I. — (Power to provide by regulations for co-ordination and unification of fire services.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 27 and 28, and to insert:
under this Act or imposed upon them, otherwise than under this Act, in connection with the fighting of fires or the making of provision for facilitating the fighting thereof.
This Amendment is mainly a drafting Amendment, but there is at the same time a little more in it than that. This passage in the Bill refers to a provision which enables the Secretary of State to make Regulations withholding any grant which would otherwise be payable by the Crown to any local authority, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the local authority has failed to perform its duties under this Measure or otherwise, in connection with fire fighting. It is proposed in this Amendment to avoid a reference to paragraph 1 of the Schedule and to substitute more general language. As the Bill stands, the words:
in connection with the matters specified in paragraph 1 of the Schedule to this Act
cover all the words in lines 26 and 27, with the result that a failure on the part of a local authority to pay to the Secretary of State a contribution under the Act would not be a failure which would authorise him to withhold grants or to set off


the sum due from the local authority against a grant payable to that authority. It is in order to prevent this drafting difficulty that we wish this Amendment to be accepted by the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand pare of the Bill.

Clause 2. — (Supplemental provisions).

Amendments made:

In page 2, line 9, leave out "sub-sections," and insert "subsection."

After "and," insert "subsection."

In line 29, leave out from "any" to "and," in line 33, and insert:

"member of the London Fire Brigade or of any fire brigade maintained under the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, by a local authority."

In line 35, leave out paragraph (d).

In line 40, leave out "employed," and insert "serving" — [Mr. Mabane.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.

Mr. Mabane: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end, to add:
so as to require them without their consent to serve in any place where they could not have been required so to serve if this Act had not been passed.
The proviso, as printed, is too wide. It would exclude the possibility of transferring regular or part-time A.F.S. firemen to State service. It is desired to preserve the proviso in so far as it safeguards part-time and unpaid personnel from liability to be transferred for service from one area to another, but to enable them to be transferred to State service.

Mr. Lindsay: Does this mean that all members of fire brigades and the A.F.S., and part-time volunteers, will be in the service of the Crown; and that the part-timers only cannot be transferred against their wishes?

Mr. Mabane: That is quite so.

Mr. Mathers: Will they be allowed to give reasons why they should not be transferred away from their homes?

Mr. Mabane: The whole point is that this prevents them from being moved, so there is no need for them to appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ALLIED POWERS (MARITIME COURTS) BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress 15lh May].

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Clause II — (Finality of decisions of Maritime Courts.)

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, to leave out from "may," to "apply," in line 17.
The possibilities of an appeal for any person convicted under this Measure ought to be made as easy and simple as possible. I do not think, as I said on a previous occasion, that the appeal arranged for is the best possible, but it is a definite appeal on the subject of the jurisdiction of a British court. It is of great importance that the appeal of a foreign subject who claims to be of a different nationality from the court that has possibly held him to be of their nationality and called upon him to be conscripted to serve on a ship, should be heard and decided by some higher tribunal. That is provided for, but why not make it as simple as possible? What is the reason for putting obstacles in the way? This foreigner, this poor person, as he undoubtedly will be, will have to get the leave of the maritime court or of the High Court. We all know the expense likely to be involved in obtaining the leave of the High Court to appeal. It would be much fairer and would give satisfaction to those who are anxious to see the appeal made as easy to work as possible, if these words were left out. I hope that the Solicitor-General will agree on behalf of the Government to their omission, and thereby make it as simple as possible for persons who may find themselves in a most difficult position as foreigners on British soil to have their cases heard and obtain their rights under international law.

Mr. Silverman: I support the Amendment. It would be wrong, if a person who complained that


the maritime court had exceeded its jurisdiction or had no jurisdiction whatever to try him should need to go to that very court for leave to appeal against its decision. It puts the High Court itself in a. difficulty. If a man had been refused leave to appeal by the maritime court the only way he could get before the High Court would be by making a preliminary application in the High Court for leave to make his application. He would have to begin by explaining that the maritime court, whose jurisdiction he was challenging, had refused him leave to go to the High Court. The High Court will be tempted, I think, in those circumstances, to refrain from interfering with the discretion of the maritime court. In other words, a man would have to show some very good reason before he could get his application heard at all. I suggest that this is a wrong use of the necessity for getting leave. If a man says, "I have been tried by the court, I have been convicted, I have been sentenced by a court which has no jurisdiction whatever to deal with my case at all," and you give him the right to challenge that in the High Court, you ought to give him an absolute right and not make it dependent on the leave or licence of the court whose jurisdiction is challenged. I think that that is a simple and a reasonable proposition, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): We do not see how we can possibly accept this Amendment. The object of this Bill is to harmonise two different concepts—first, that of justice, and, secondly, that of speed in decision. It may not often happen, but it may happen sometimes that people will be anxious to seek every excuse for delay and if we allow anybody, automatically, to appeal to the High Court, people may in some cases be tempted to do so not because they expect any relief at the hands of the High Court, but because they realise that by the time they have gone to the High Court, have made their application and have had their appeals heard, that very procedure will secure the delay which perhaps they want.

Mr. Silverman: Delay in what?

The Solicitor-General: Delay in carrying out the sentence, or in serving on a

ship. Therefore, we do not see our way to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment will see in Clause 11, paragraph 3 (b), that we have expressly provided that in determination of the law, a decision of a maritime court has to be final. How idle it would be to allow these people to think they have an unrestricted right of appeal, if they go up to a High Court only to be told, "This is all a misapprehension. It is obviously a matter of law and we cannot hear you." It is only when matters of fact arise that this appeal comes into being, and we think it better, in a man's own interests, not to raise false hopes. If a man has a prima facie case a maritime court will give him his leave. Take for instance the writ of habeas corpus. If you go to a High Court and show some kind of prima facie case and apply for your rule, the Court, if it thinks you have something which merits consideration, says, "You may have your rule." You cannot just go to a High Court and ask for it. The normal practice is to go to the High Court and show some grounds for thinking that the inferior court has exceeded its jurisdiction. If you make out some showing for a prima faciecase yon get your ruling, but to give an unrestricted right of appeal would not be in accordance with precedent. We think it is much better to follow the established practice which has been carried out down the years and has worked out very well.

Mr. Mander: I cannot say that I am moved by what the Solicitor-General has said. I think it would be much better to adopt the line of an international court of appeal. But in view of the fact that he does not see his way on behalf of the Government to make any concession, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12. — (Indemnity for acts done in purported exercise of jurisdiction.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Shinwell: I feel that this Clause ought, to be deleted from the Bill. I should like to hear from the Solicitor-General some justification for it, and until my right hon. and learned Friend fortifies the Clause by some argument, I am bound


to express opposition to it. My right hon. and learned Friend has just told the Committee that the essential need with regard to this Bill is speed, and with that view I concur, but while speed is the essence of the case and while those persons who are implicated should be arrested and sentenced summarily, at the same time nobody has any desire to see that speed converted into injustice. This Clause provides, in effect, for absolute indemnification. There is no modification of the principle, as far as I can ascertain. It will be noted, first, that an accused person, when sentenced, has no right of appeal. That is a provision to which special attention should be directed. It may happen, and indeed it is pretty certain that it will happen in the course of the confusion arising from the Bill and the interest of the Allied Governments concerned in the matter, that persons may be arrested by other persons acting on the authority of Allied Governments. The Allied Governments may have no standing in the case whatever. For example, a Norwegian seaman might be haled before a maritime court under the jurisdiction of the Dutch Government, or vice versa, and if the person concerned were sentenced and then it was discovered that the court had acted without any standing and that the decision was ultra vires of the Act, there would be no means of redress. That is the simple point. Nobody wants to embarrass the Allied Governments more than is essential in the circumstances and we recognise their special difficulties, but we must also appreciate the special difficulty in which many seafaring persons serving on foreign vessels may find themselves.
The short point which I want to put to the Solicitor-General is this. Some deterrent is necessary to restrain Allied Governments acting under this provision from arresting anybody and everybody, as they may well do in the circumstances. It may be that the Solicitor-General will be able to satisfy me on this issue and show that it is not intended that these courts shall have complete indemnification and that at some point it may be possible to place some limitation on their functions. If so, I shall be appeased. If not, it seems to me that we ought to ensure that some modification of their powers is effected, and if there is no other alternative and if the Solicitor-General cannot give such an

assurance, it seems to me that the Clause ought to be deleted.

Mr. Gallacher: I also support the Amendment. This Clause, in itself, is a demonstration of the bad character of this Government, because only a very bad Government would require such a bad Clause. There has been some talk about the sovereign rights of Allied Governments not being interfered with, but there have been counterfeit sovereigns and bad sovereign rights. This is a case of the worst kind of sovereign rights being given to Allied Governments, because the Minister is now saying that the Government have decided, if the Allied Governments set up these maritime courts, that these courts can do no wrong. There used to be a lot of talk about "The King can do no wrong," but never did I think we should reach a situation where the Minister, with all his past, good and bad, would come to the House of Commons seeking to establish maritime courts with the old vexatious idea that they can do no wrong.
Suppose a Norwegian, Dutch or Greek seaman is picked up when he comes into port, after having been through the most terrible hazards. That man may have been with a convoy, or perhaps his ship has been set on fire and he has been battling against the flames. Perhaps he may have been adrift for many days, or has been urged by his engineer to continue with his work, so that eventually the ship can stagger into port. After days and nights of this kind of thing that seaman is completely worn out. He gets off the ship hoping for a little peace and quiet, but he is picked up and taken before a maritime court and sentenced to one month's imprisonment. The ship has to sail short-handed—which is a great help in the Battle of the Atlantic—and then, after he has served one month's imprisonment and lost one month's service and pay, it is discovered that the court had no standing. Is that man not to be given any consideration? Suppose, in similar circumstances a man is brought before a maritime court and in order that the ship may not sail short-handed, a fine of £25 or £50 is imposed. That amount will be taken off his wages and then, after several months, it may be discovered that the court has no standing. Is no consideration to be given to that man? Of course, if he had paid only half the fine


at the time when it was discovered the court had no standing, he would not have to pay any more, but there is nothing to compel the court to compensate him for what he has paid or wrongfully endured.
A Bill containing a Clause of this kind should not be accepted, and it is very unfortunate that some Members of the Labour party are so much more concerned with just following the Government, no matter what dangerous path the Government may tread, than with the interests of the men themselves. There are some who have justified the existence of the Labour party by careful watch and criticism of the line that the Government are taking. It is a pity that others have not followed their example, because this Bill is typical of the very great evil that can be done to the country and to a section of our real Allies, the men who are sailing the ships in the dangerous and hazardous conditions of to-day. It is shameful that there should be such concern for the maritime courts as is expressed in this Clause and such an absolute lack of concern for the men who are doing the real job.

Mr. A. Bevan: I am very worried indeed about this Clause. I am rather disappointed that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) did not press his previous Amendment. He puts Amendments on the Paper so frequently, and runs away from them so hurriedly, that I shall have to treat them in future with greater frivolity. The last Amendment which he withdrew gave the right to a sailor to appeal to the High Court without the permission of the maritime court where he considered that the maritime court had exceeded its jurisdiction. That has a direct bearing upon this Clause. Almost all the criticism that has come from this side has been that it is difficult to decide who comes under the jurisdiction of the maritime courts. If anyone says this indemnification is limited, I say it is limited to just that part of the Bill which gives rise to the greatest doubt, that is, the doubt about who in fact ought to come under these courts.
I shall be interested to learn how often Clauses of this kind are introduced into Bills. This seems a most astonishing Clause. Is it a fact that it is a standard Clause? I am not a lawyer and it may be that I am arguing on something that I know nothing about. This may be a

standard Clause which is introduced into a large body of legislation. If so, I shall have to withdraw what I have said, but I am very frightened, because if this kind of power is to be given to the court, it is the very essence of totalitarianism. Any policeman can arrest a person under a warrant and bring him before a court; the court can sentence him, and the House of Commons says, "If the court has made a mistake, the man has no right of action against it." The individual just disappears out of the picture, and no individual rights remain. Only court rights and State rights are left in such a picture as that.
It is surely the very essence of democratic legislation that a court shall be subject to an action against it if it has exceeded its rights under the law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says to the Committee to-day, "A perfectly innocent seaman can be brought up before this court and can be subjected to its punishments and penalties, and if it is found that the court has made a mistake, no action lies by the individual against it." I do not know what my hon. Friend thinks about that, but if he persists in that view, I shall be happy to divide against the Government on it. We cannot possibly allow the court to have this power, because it would make it an irresponsible court. The individual would be deprived of all rights, and the court could act irresponsibly and sentence anybody they liked, and the person would have no rights. It is a complete abrogation of citizen rights. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will develop an argument concerning the position of English subjects, and I will not trespass upon his argument.
We are really concerned about citizens who are not English subjects and who are temporarily enjoying our hospitality, and we ought not to hand them over to principles which would be repugnant in the case of British subjects. If it were to be held that a British subject ought not to be deprived of his rights, and if that is a principle of universal application, why should it be withheld from the subjects of another Power who enjoy our hospitality? Why should we not give them the protection of those principles that we ourselves consider to be so important? Unless the Solicitor-General has a sub-


stantial argument in favour of the Clause which I cannot think of, it will be desirable for us to oppose it. There is nothing in the Bill so far which prevents the expedition of a sentence. Indeed on the last Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could not accept it because it would hold up the punishment of the person. The punishment, therefore, is to go forward at once, but if it has been wrongly imposed, he now says that the court which has imposed it is to be immune and that the individual who has suffered it is to have no rights whatever. That is a violation of all the principles underlying the British system of jurisprudence, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us good grounds for the Clause.

The Solicitor-General: I think there is a good deal of misapprehension and misunderstanding on this matter, and I am very glad the hon. Member has raised it, because it is desirable that it should be cleared up. The power which we are seeking in this Clause is, of course, a power which, in any system of law, is absolutely necessary for the functioning of the courts. Judges are human; judges may make mistakes, however hard they try not to do so; indeed, they must make mistakes. If as a result of what happened in a superior court a judge was liable to an action for damages for wrongful imprisonment, for whatever sentence he had passed, it would be absolutely impossible to get anyone to accept the onerous position of being a judge. What happens in our own country? Suppose that by a judicial error a man is sentenced to prison and serves part of his sentence, but subsequently gets his case before a higher tribunal and a higher tribunal says, "The whole thing was a mistake and the judge was wrong in this, that or the other respect." What happens? The sentence is quashed. But the individual has no sort of right of redress—none whatever. All he can do, all that he has done in some celebrated cases which we all remember, is to exercise some pressure to get the Government of the day, as a matter of grace, to grant him some gratuity out of the public funds.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who has been very helpful on this Bill, will realise on reflection that the redress, if there is to be redress, must

come out of public funds and cannot possibly come out of the pocket of the unfortunate judge who happened to make the error. That is inherent in our system of law and I believe it is inherent in every system of law. I do not profess to be an expert on the matter, but I have no doubt that even in the Soviet Union if a judge makes an error which is reversed on appeal there are provisions which say that the trial judge is not liable to compensate the unhappy person who has been the victim of the error. It must be so in every system of law.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we not at cross purposes? Is not the point this: not that the court has been responsible for an error of judgment and has imposed a sentence wrongfully, but that the question has arisen whether the court had jurisdiction, whether, say, a Norwegian court has acted in a case which ought to have been dealt with by the court of another country?

The Solicitor-General: That, of course, is the point. If the court acts with jurisdiction there can be no question, because the court has acted rightly. It is only in cases where the court acts without jurisdiction that the High Court can reverse that decision as having been given outside the court's jurisdiction. The court may apply its mind to this question of jurisdiction and do the very best it can to determine the problem and yet come to an erroneous conclusion. It very often happens that the court makes an error about jurisdiction. It is one of the commonest reasons why a superior court has to reverse the decision of an inferior court. If we did not have this Clause, every unhappy judge of this court who, on my hypothesis, has applied his mind to the problem fairly and honestly—of course I am not dealing with other cases—and really thinks he has jurisdiction and acts on that assumption, would find himself responsible for damages if a superior court found that he had made an error.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really press that point?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly.

Mr. Bevan: If there is a claim for compensation, would it not be a claim against public funds? If that is not what the language of the Clause says, would it not be easy to make it say that?

The Solicitor-General: No, it would not. The effect of this Clause is to protect an individual who, otherwise, would be liable in damages for false imprisonment. But for this Clause, any judge of a maritime court, notwithstanding the fact that he had honestly and sincerely applied his mind to the question and had honestly and sincerely come to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction, and upon that conclusion had based his judgment, if a superior court takes the view that he was in error—and this is a very difficult thing to determine with certainty—would be liable for damages. We do not want this Clause in our jurisdiction because it is an inherent part of our common law. It is there, without being written in. The only cases in which you want this sort of Clause are those in which a foreign court is functioning on our territory. Whenever we have had a foreign court functioning on our territory we always have had this sort of Clause.
There are two striking illustrations. One is the Visiting Forces Act. The hon. Member will be aware that we sometimes get visiting forces here and there are, of course, disciplinary powers in respect of those visiting forces. He will find that there is the same sort of provision, but rather stronger, protecting courts sitting on our territory and using those disciplinary powers, from the consequences of their mistakes. There is a similar provision in the Allied Forces Act of last year. That provision is stronger. It provides that the court is to be conclusively deemed to have jurisdiction. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, just as it is an inherent part of any judicial system whose courts are operating on its own territory that the judges are protected in the event of mistake—albeit that it is a mistake of jurisdiction, one of the commonest types of mistake—so here, when we have a foreign court operating on our territory, we must give it the same protection as our own courts have enjoyed from time immemorial.
If injustice is done, and it sometimes has been done here, the appropriate remedy has been found to be to put pressure upon the Government and to ask whether they will not intervene, as an act of Royal clemency, oddly enough, although the man may have been completely innocent. Also, the Foreign Office here will use its best endeavours to keep in touch with the foreign Governments.

Those foreign Governments, believe me, are most anxious to carry out their duties and their functions in a way which will win the approval not only of their own people but of our people. All I am seeking to do by the Clause is to put these foreign tribunals in exactly the same position as our own tribunals have been here. If we did not have this Clause, any judge who might have been in error would be subject to personal responsibility. I trust that the hon. Member who spoke last will see the need for this Clause. I would emphasise one point. We attach a condition, of course, in these very important words:
anything done in good faith.
Obviously if you can show a case for thinking that judges were not acting honestly and making an honest mistake, but were deliberately invoking a jurisdiction which they knew they did not possess, it is proper that they should be liable to action for damages.

Mr. Silverman: We are very grateful to the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has put his argument in support of the Clause, but I suggest that he has failed to meet the argument that was directed to him. He has pursued his argument as though the only persons protected by the Clause were the court. That is not so. The Clause provides that
anything done in good faith and in purported exercise of the powers conferred by this Act for the purpose of or in connection with the trial or punishment of any person
is protected equally with the court. Does the Solicitor-General say that that is the same principle under our law?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly.

Mr. Silverman: I suggest, with all respect, that it is not so at all. I submit that it is perfectly possible to sue a policeman or a gaoler for wrongful imprisonment if he had no power, whatever may be his good faith. Surely there can be no possible dispute about that. If a policeman exercises a power of arrest that he does not possess, there is nothing in the law of our country to prevent an action for wrongful imprisonment being brought against him, and good faith is no answer in those circumstances. If a gaoler detains a man without lawful authority in a gaol, there is nothing to prevent an action for damages being brought against him, and good faith again is no answer.


But under this Clause all these people are completely and entirely protected, and it is on that ground that I think the Solicitor-General's argument is wrong. None of these maritime courts is to have power over a British subject. If a man claims that he is a British subject his case must immediately go to a local tribunal, and that question must be determined by that local tribunal, and the Bill provides that on arrest a man must be given notice of his right— [Interruption]. I know that the Committee is extremely anxious, as I am, to hear the Prime Minister's statement, but I hope they will nevertheless permit me to conclude my argument. I shall not take a moment longer than is necessary.
Suppose a British subject is arrested and is not informed of his right to have his claim to be a British subject determined by a local tribunal. Suppose he is haled before a maritime court and imprisoned, perhaps for a long time, for an act over which that court has no jurisdiction at all. Then, under this Clause, that British subject will have no right of redress against any person connected with his imprisonment in any way, and I do not believe that the House of Commons when it passed the Second Reading, intended that that position should result. I hope that between now and the next stage, the Solicitor-General will reconsider the position and see whether some modification or amendment of the Clause cannot be made to meet the points raised in the Debate this afternoon.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15. —(Power of Minister of Shipping to order certain ships to be treated as ships of any Power.)

Motion made and Question proposed., "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Shinwell: I am as anxious as other hon. Members to expedite the procedure to enable my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make what I have no doubt is a very important statement, but would it not be possible to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again so that we might discuss these matters later?

The Chairman: I cannot see that the reason suggested has any relevance to the business of the Committee, and I cannot accept such a Motion at this stage.

Mr. Bevan: I understand, Sir Dennis, that the Prime Minister is anxious to make a statement, while the Committee are anxious to discuss this Bill. Would it be convenient for the Prime Minister to move to report Progress, in order that he might make his statement?

The Chairman: None of these things is relevant to the matter before the Committee.

Mr. Bevan: Might I respectfully submit that the Prime Minister, in order to make his statement now, should move to report Progress?

The Chairman: I have already refused to accept that Motion.

Mr. Bevan: The Committee is involved in a discussion on a very detailed Bill, and the Government have Amendments to the Bill. The Government are anxious to make a statement. Do I understand you to say, Sir Dennis, that if the Prime Minister wishes to report Progress you will not accept the Motion?

The Chairman: No, the hon. Member has no reason to suppose anything of the kind.

Mr. Bevan: May I, therefore, make an appeal to the Prime Minister, through you, Sir—

The Chairman: Hon. Members must not rise to talk about matters which are not relevant to the business before the Committee. I am bound by Rule. If hon. Members would allow the business to proceed according to the Rules, we should get on better.

Mr. Bevan: I understand entirely; and, if I may say so, there is nothing at all wrong with what you have said. But may I respectfully suggest, through you, that the Prime Minister should move to report Progress, in order to be able to make his statement?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not in Order in making suggestions of that kind at this stage.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw attention to the fact that it was intended on this


side to have a Division on Clause 12, and that it was decided to give way in order that we might have the statement which everybody presumed was to be made, and then go on with the discussion on the Bill. Can nothing be done so that we can get that statement and then proceed with the Bill?

The Chairman: As I have said, if hon. Members would allow the business of the Committee to be conducted according to the Rules, they could get the statement very quickly.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): I beg to move, in page 10, line 18, to leave out "Shipping," and to insert "War Transport."
The title of the Ministry has been changed, and the Amendment is therefore necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17. — (Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 11, line 42, leave out "Seafaring person," and insert" Seaman of that Power."

In line 42, after "means," insert "in relation to any Power."

In page 12, line I, leave out "ship," and insert "ships of that Power." — [Mr. Peake.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 — (Application to Scotland.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 12, line 27, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
"(a) for the reference in paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State and for any reference elsewhere in this Act to the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted a reference to the Lord Justice General;
(b) for references to the High Court there shall be substituted references to the High Court of Justiciary."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

The Chairman: The new Clause on the Order Paper ("Provision as to wages and conditions of employment ") is not in Order.

Mr. Shinwell: I know it is very difficult to ascertain from the Chair why an Amendment or a new Clause is out of Order, but all I wanted to do in proposing the new Clause was to secure from the Government an assurance, and may I not put my point?

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot do it now, but he can do it on the Third Reading. The new Clause is definitely out of Order as being outside the scope of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — CRETE (ENEMY ATTACK).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. James Stuart.]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I must apologise to the House for having introduced a distraction into the keen and workmanlike discussion which has been proceeding upon the Bill before it, but, as I mentioned to the House this morning that a serious attack had been begun upon the Island of Crete by air-borne troops, I thought that the House would like to know, before it separated, what is the latest information in the possession of the Government. But I cannot pretend that the statement is of momentous importance. It is only because we are all together in this matter that I thought that the House would be most anxious to be kept fully informed, as it is my duty to do whenever possible. After a good deal of intense bombing of Suda Bay and the various aerodromes in the neighbourhood, about 1,500 enemy troops, wearing New Zealand battle-dress, landed by gliders, parachutes and troop-carriers in the Canea-Maleme area. This message was sent at 12 o'clock to-day, when the military reported that the situation was in hand. Apparently the capture of Maleme aerodrome was the enemy's object, and this has so far failed.
A later report at 3 o'clock says that there is continuous enemy reconnaissance, accompanied by sporadic bombing and machine-gunning, chiefly against anti-aircraft defence. The military hospital between Canea and Maleme, captured by the enemy, has now been recaptured. There is reported to be a fairly strong enemy party South of the Canea-Maleme Road, which has not yet been mopped up, but other parties are reported to be accounted for. Heraklion was bombed, but there has been no landing so far. I must apologise to the House for intruding on them, but I thought they would like to hear how the action has so far developed.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): What is the position of enemy soldiers wearing British uniforms?

Mr. Shinwell: May I say, as one whose speech was slightly interrupted, that I am exceedingly grateful to my right hon. Friend, as I am sure are the other Members of the House?

Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — ALLIED POWERS (MARITIME COURTS) BILL.

As amended, considered.

Clause 2. — (Jurisdiction of Maritime Courts.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out:
not being acts or emissions committed more than six months before the passing of this Act.
With this Amendment there is a consequential manuscript Amendment: in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the Maritime Courts of any Power shall not have jurisdiction to try any person for any act or omission committed before the date of the passing of this Act except an act or omission committed at any time not more than six months before that date and constituting an offence against some law of that Power in force at that time other than the merchant shipping law and mercantile marine conscription law thereof.

Mr. Bevan: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has moved a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Two Amendments have been mentioned, one consequential upon

the other. Both are being explained and taken together.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask how many copies of the manuscript Amendments can be made available to the House? In former times it was only necessary to hand a manuscript Amendment to one or two persons who might be presumed to be acting for the Opposition, but now the Opposition is somewhat diffused. May we know how many copies of the manuscript Amendments are available for the House, so that we can know what we are discussing?

Mr. Peake: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. There are only a few copies of these Amendments available, as we are proceeding with this Bill under some pressure. These particular Amendments have been the subject of discussions during the day with the Allied Governments and other bodies interested. I think I can explain it quite shortly and satisfactorily to the House. When we were discussing Clause 2 on the Committee stage, we sought to introduce some words to make it clear whether or not the jurisdiction given to the maritime courts applied to offences which had already been committed. The Clause, as drafted, was doubtful on that question, and it is highly probable that, had we passed the Clause in that form, questions would have arisen later in regard to it. I mentioned to the Committee that there were, for example, two cases of suspected murder which had taken place on merchant ships on the high seas and which, unless it was made clear that some courts had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, would be bound to go untried. It was agreed during the discussions— the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) taking a particular interest in this matter—that it was desirable that serious offences of that nature should come within the ambit of Clause 2. During the discussions, we offered to introduce a time limit into the Clause, and our original offer of a time limit of acts committed within 12 months previous to the passing of the Act not proving altogether satisfactory to my hon. Friend opposite, we reduced it from 12 to six months. What we are now proposing to do goes even further towards satisfying my hon. Friend. We tried appeasing him in small doses without much success. We are now giving him a substantial measure of appeasement.
Our two Amendments provide for these matters. First, they provide that there shall be no retrospective operation of Clause 2 in respect of the types of offences mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1); that is to say, there shall be no proceedings in respect of offences which have already been committed if those offences consist of acts or omissions committed by masters or members of the crew in contravention of the merchant shipping law of any country, or, under paragraph (c), if those offences constitute acts or omissions committed by a seafaring person in contravention of the mercantile conscription law. Such offences, if they have occurred before the passing of the Act, will not be triable by any court. We do, however, wish to retain a power for offences already committed against the ordinary criminal law of these various Allied States to be tried, and therefore, we are proposing that acts or omissions against the ordinary law under paragraph (a) may be triable. But we insert a still further safeguard and that is that they shall not be triable unless they constitute an offence against a law of that Power in force at the time when the offence was committed. That is inserted in order to prevent the possibility of an Allied Government legislating retrospectively and creating a new offence, and then proceeding under its criminal laws against a person who has been on board one of their merchant ships. We have gone rather further than we were invited to do on the Committee stage. This Amendment has been discussed informally with the Allied Governments, and they are perfectly satisfied in regard to it. It has also been discussed with a representative of the seamen unions in this country, who has expressed himself to be satisfied with it.

Mr. Silverman: Can we know whether this Amendment which is now being moved was discussed with the Allied Governments concerned?

Mr. Peake: It was discussed yesterday afternoon with a representative of the seamen unions, and it has been mentioned through diplomatic channels to the representatives of Allied Governments.

Mr. Silverman: Mentioned, and not discussed?

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has just told the House of his anxiety to appease me, but this is not appeasement: it is abject surrender. My only regret is that my hon. Friend should have been charged with this irksome task. The villain of the piece is the Attorney-General. Why is he hiding himself, and why is he skulking? I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will take part in the discussion on this proposed Amendment, and that he will seek to justify the amazing statement he made in the course of our previous Debate. Let us recall the circumstances. What is proposed in this Government Amendment is precisely what I ventured to ask the Government to accept on that occasion. I agree that major offences of a criminal character, for example, murder on the high seas, which, as I remarked before, is an obsession of the Government— and there were only two cases of the kind within the knowledge of the Government—should surely come within the category of retrospective offences. What I ventured to point out was that to rake up every minor offence which took place on board ship 12 months or six months before the passing of this Bill, was bound to create serious trouble among the seamen concerned. What has been the purpose of this Measure? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he opened the Debate on this Bill, indicated that he knew nothing about the provisions of the Measure at all. I do not blame him for that, and I make no complaint because my right hon. Friend has many preoccupations.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I make a complaint.

Mr. Shinwell: I shall be delighted if my right hon. Friend will participate in the Debate and explain. Perhaps we may have it right away. [Interruption.] I am not sure why my right hon. Friend is interjecting. He is asking me to hide my antagonism. There is no antagonism. Are we to understand that because we criticise that is antagonism? Is my right hon. Friend immune from criticism? Surely not. I know my right hon. Friend has many qualities, but I never knew he was sacrosanct. What I am pointing out is that when my right hon. Friend came before the House with this Measure he had had no consultation with any of the


foreign seamen unions on this retrospective proposal.
Is that right or wrong? I shall be delighted if the hon. Gentleman deals with that matter. Let him, however, say whether he had any consultations of the kind with the Ministry of War Communications. That is the point of substance that I put in the course of the earlier Debate. I pointed out that there had been consultations with the Norwegian and other unions on the general provisions of the Bill, but there had been no consultations as to whether it should be retrospective in character. That argument has never been challenged. Not even my right hon. Friend, with all his ability and flair for political controversy, can dispute that.
Knowing the circumstances, I asked the Government not to press this retrospective legislation, but the Attorney-General was stubborn, obstinate, recalcitrant, refractory. He would not budge an inch and, to the cheers of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries behind him, and particularly the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), he succeeded in impressing on the Committee that it was unwise for the Government to accept my proposal. Four days have elapsed and the Government have suddenly discovered that I was right and they were wrong. That is putting it shortly and bluntly, but it is the fact. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not come and say that the Government were wrong and admit their mistake? Moreover, a great deal of time was wasted on Thursday. We argued the matter for nearly two hours. The Solicitor-General was there, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Communications said a word or two, the Under-Secretary for the Home Office said a word or two, and the Attorney-General said more; than a word or two. What has emerged? That the Government were wrong. Now the Government have to come forward with a complete recantation. I object to the time of the House being wasted by the Government.

Mr. Peake: I should have thought that one of the advantages of having a Committee stage of a Bill and discussing Amendments was that it sometimes led to the improvement of the Bill, and to the

adoption of suggestions made by hon. Members.

Mr. Shinwell: That is all very well if the hon. Gentleman had accepted the suggestion I made, that between Committee and Report there should be further consideration of the matter so that we might be completely informed on the Report stage, as we are now, after representations have been made and after the Government have given the matter meticulous consideration. The Government stood on their dignity, they would not give way an inch, they forced me to divide the Committee, a thing I had no desire to do, they divided the Labour party. I was not responsible for dividing the Labour party. It was the Government. Many of my hon. Friends followed the Government into the Lobby. I do not object to that, but I ask the hon. Gentleman, and all Members, to consider the substance of the proposal and all the arguments involved before they so blindly and sheepishly follow the Government Whips into the Lobby. The 14 or 16 Members who voted for the Amendment have been fully vindicated in their action.
Representations were made by both the National Seamen's Union and the Navigating Engineers' and Officers' Union and by the Norwegian Seamen's Union yesterday to the Home Office in connection with this matter. They convinced the Home Office that the Government were wrong. That is why we have this Amendment. The Attorney-General would not be convinced by the force of my arguments or by the oratory of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). He would not even give way when I tried to appease him and spoke quietly to him. What has convinced the Government is not the House of Commons or hon. Members' arguments or oratory, but external representations. I have the greatest respect for these external bodies and the representations they make but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a question, and he can take it as he likes. I do not put it in a spirit of antagonism, although he seems to regard everything I say as antagonism to himself; perhaps he does not like my style, but I am not going to cramp my style even for him. I would ask him whether he pays more attention to external representations than to Members of this House. We have protested


on this side over and over again in the past when representations of an external kind have been made to oppose the Government on mining and other questions. We have said that the House of Commons ought to exert its influence. Apparently the House has had no influence in this matter. The action of the Government which is embodied in this Amendment has been induced by external representations.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It has served a good purpose by drawing attention to this question.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his observation, but it does not vitiate the argument I am voicing that the House of Commons has been studiously ignored in this matter. It has been combated, and not only has it been combated in the usual way of Parliamentary tradition, but the very suggestion that one Member should offer an Amendment and go into the Division Lobby is regarded as disloyalty. Disloyalty to whom? There is no disloyalty to the House of Commons or to the war effort. If it is disloyalty to individuals, they do not matter in this regard. It will be asked why I should complain when the Government have given me all I ask. I agree that when you get what you want you ought not to complain, but, after all, it does not lie in the mouths of any Member of the Government to use that argument. They have had to recant. They have had to give way and make this surrender. It means that they have wasted several hours of their own valuable time. How often are we told that Members of the Government are so fully occupied that they have little time to attend to Debates in the House? They have had to occupy their time quite unnecessarily on this matter because of the stubborn attitude and the obstinacy of the Attorney-General. I blame him, and if I had the power I would move for a reduction in his salary.
Let me put the point that emerges from this Amendment. It is, of course, satisfactory to the Norwegian Seamen's Union and to the other seamen's unions. It is precisely what they wanted. They have no desire to prevent these maritime courts being set up, and I have ascertained—I am prepared to concede this to the Government—that they would rather come within the jurisdiction of these Allied

courts than within the jurisdiction of British courts. Having obtained that information, I give it to the House. The point here is that although the men are willing to come within the jurisdiction of courts under the control of their own Governments, they are not willing to have minor past offences raked up against them. That is not the only consideration. We were told that this Bill was intended primarily to assist the war effort. Anything that will assist the war effort will command my immediate support, and there will be no hesitation or fumbling.
But the case which the Government put to us when first they rejected the proposal would itself have impeded the war effort, in this way. There are thousands of Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian and Greek seamen on Allied ships in ports in the United States of America. There has been a good deal of trouble among them. Some of us here have been doing our best behind the scenes, as probably the Government are aware, to try to induce the men not to desert their ships, to respond speedily to the demands made upon them by their respective shipmasters and not to engage in subversive activity, of which there is far too much in the United States. If those men had known that if they returned to this country on allied ships they might be picked up by their own Governments for offences committed within the last six months, obviously they would have taken immediate steps to desert. That would not have speeded-up our war effort. The merchant shipping law of the United States is of such a kind that men are stimulated to desert their vessels. I need not go into details, but that law by no means assists the British war effort, and I understand that representations have been made to the United States asking them to modify the law, or to operate it in such a form as to assist the war effort. But obviously those men would have left their ships. Can we imagine a man remaining on a Norwegian vessel which is in Baltimore, Boston or Halifax if he knew that when the ship returned to a British port he might be immediately arrested? Of course not. He would not take the risk.
That was the objection we raised to the proposal when it was first enunciated, and I think I am entitled to express my resentment when I find that although the


Government first resisted our proposal they now come along to recant. I say they have wasted the time of the House and of hon. Members. It has impeded the war effort. If there had not been so long a discussion on this issue on the Committee stage the Government could have got their Bill last Thursday. I was approached by the Patronage Secretary who said, "Let us have the Bill?" I said, "If the Government will concede my point, and the point of my hon. Friends behind me, we will do so," but the Government would not agree, and as a result the Bill was held up. That is not speeding up the war effort. Now they have to come along and agree that they made a mistake and are responsible for impeding the war effort. I object to that.
I regret that I should have had to speak with so much feeling on the matter. It was not done because of antagonism to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but simply because I resent this ineptitude on the part of the Government. Now that the matter has been cleared up and the House is fully informed of the facts—and I have stated the facts— [Interruption.] An hon. Member states that I am not giving the facts, but I can quote the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he looks at it he will find that the facts are as I am stating them. I am within the recollection of hon. Members behind me. There were very few hon. Members in the Chamber at the time, and that is a pity, because if hon. Members had been aware of the situation the Government might have been defeated on this proposal—not that I want to defeat the Government on an issue of this kind or upon a major issue. I recognise that that would by no means assist the war effort. I have put my case with some feeling because I thought it was necessary to do so. Now that we have got this change of heart on the part of the Government, I hope that we can get the Bill through with the utmost expediency.

Mr. Mander: I was going to make some reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) with reference to a previous Amendment of mine, but after his pitiable collapse in the last discussion, I feel that it is unnecessary to do so. It was impossible to see him for dust when he was running away from his own speech at a very rapid rate.

With regard to the Amendment which the Government have moved, I am gratified that they have done so, because it is exactly in accordance with what I suggested to the Minister during the recent Debate. I do not find myself in quite the same paroxysm of anger as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I feel gratified that the suggestion has been accepted.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member voted for the Government.

Mr. Mander: Certainly I did. I happen to be a supporter of the Government, and I do not mind saying that.

Mr. Shinwell: And a very queer one, too.

Mr. Mander: I support the Government, as I have shown in the past, and I do not wish to embarrass them in any way. I think they showed wisdom in listening to the arguments put forward last week. They have conducted negotiations which have resulted to giving satisfaction, in spite of the vehement protests of hon. Members.

Mr. Bevan: I thought that all that need be said had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and I was astonished when I heard the shrill tones of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) complaining about me. The fact is that the hon. Member now welcomes the proposal against which he voted last week. He must look up his own Parliamentary record. He is always prepared to wound but never prepared to kill.

Mr. Mander: If you are supporting the Government you do not attempt to beat them down by voting against them. You plead with them and try to persuade them, and you put forward practical proposals. That is the way to get results, and it has succeeded in this case.

Mr. Bevan: I did not think that the fate of the Government was involved in the Division last week.

Mr. Mander: It would have been if the Government had been defeated.

Mr. Bevan: That is nonsense. Hon. Members who were here last week will be aware that the hon. Member's statement is complete and utter nonsense. All that


was involved was the fate of the Amendment. The hon. Member says he is delighted that the Government have realised what a mistake he made last week. That, in effect, is all he has said. If the Government had accepted the advice which he gave them, we should not be discussing the Amendment to-day. He has been in the House long enough to know that no question of the defeat of the Government was involved. We should have had a much longer and a much more effective discussion on Clause 12, had it not been for the fact that the Prime Minister came here to make a statement. I thought he could have given me the credit for intervening several times to get the Prime Minister's statement made earlier in order that we might have had a discussion on Clause 12. I must say the hon. Member's sense of fairness is obscured by his desire to be self-righteous.
In this particular matter I wish to make one protest. The Government knew some time ago that they were going to bring forward this Amendment. They have had plenty of time in which to get out copies of it. This unique situation exists: The Government moved an Amendment last Thursday which was carried by the House; it was a manuscript Amendment and is not embodied in the Bill. We now have a manuscript Amendment to the manuscript Amendment, and only three or four copies are available to Members. Any third-rate provincial debating society could have circulated more copies than the Government have provided of this Amendment. The Government treat the House with absolute disrespect in this matter, and the reason is that the last two years have taught them that the House of Commons is composed of docile sheep. It is time the Government started to treat the House with more respect, and the only way in which they can be forced to do so is to vote against them on such matters as this. It is perfectly clear that last week the House thought the Government had made a great mistake. When 1 was going into the Division Lobby I was told by a large number of Members of my party that we were quite wrong, that we had against us the legal learning of the Solicitor-General and of the Attorney-General, and that if we carried our Amendment, the situation would be far worse than it would be under the Govern-

ment's Amendment. That is what I was told by hon. Members outside. The hon. Member now says that that was wrong, but it was so right last week that he supported the Government. Accordingly, when we voted against the Government on that occasion, we were described as very naughty boys, and not only naughty, but wholly misinformed. Now we find, to-day, that we were right and the Government were wrong. But even now the hon. Gentleman does not say we were right. What he says is that he is making a concession to us, whereas, as a matter of fact, we know that in the meantime pressure has been brought to bear on the Government from outside when we ourselves were not able to exert it.
The House of Commons is suffering very badly indeed in its legislation from the absence of an organised Opposition. There is no doubt about that, and it will have to be our duty to scrutinise the Government's legislation more microscopically in future, because the Government obviously cannot be trusted to deal justly with these matters. They treat the House frivolously, draft legislation loosely, without proper regard to the consequences, and it is only when a few hon. Members of the House who are alive to their public duties criticise the Government that we are able, not to evoke a response from the Government, but to stimulate intelligent action outside the House which influences the Government to make concessions which they ought to have made in response to criticism in the House. Why do not the Government understand that there is no body of Members of the House of Commons who oppose them on the general principles of the war effort? Why do they not understand that it is the desire of hon. Members to improve the legislation before the House without in any way affecting the general prestige of the Government? Why do the Government not approach Debases in that spirit and make concessions when it seems desirable, instead of taking up the attitude of a Government which has an Opposition, when in fact there is no Opposition? I submit that the Government have made themselves quite ridiculous. This is a lesson that Members will have to assert against the Government if the House of Commons is to do its duty to the country, and they must scrutinise legislation as it was scrutinised when there was an organised Opposition in the


House. I hope that hon. Members will not scruple to vote against the Government, whenever necessary, on such matters as this, which do not necessarily involve the life of the Government or the prestige of the British war effort.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who has just been getting it in the neck, may remember that I had a passage at arms with him last Thursday, when this Amendment by the Government, which we are now amending again, was before the Committee. I heard the hon. Member say that he welcomed this Amendment because it was his own suggestion. If he says that he made the suggestion, I accept that from him; but he did not make the suggestion here.

Mr. Mander: I can show you the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Silverman: I have his speech, and he did not make the suggestion there. He began by saying:
We have had a very enlightening picture—" 
and then went on to say:
I believe that the Allied Governments could be relied upon to act in a fair and reasonable way
He paid what is, no doubt, a well-deserved compliment to them. I will read the whole of his speech if the hon. Member would like it.

Mr. Mander: Oh, no.

Mr. Silverman: He went on to say:
It seems utterly wrong to deprive them of rights to which they would have been entitled in their own country if they had not been overrun by Germany. That would have been retrospective legislation of an entirely novel kind—retrospective legislation in favour of the criminal. The Attorney-General put forward the reasons for this Amendment in a way which seemed to me entirely convincing.
Because he was entirely convinced, he voted for it.

Mr. Mander: My hon. Friend has omitted to read the passage of the speech which was against the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot read it all.

Mr. Mander: Perhaps I might be allowed to remedy the omission, which is rather important. The final passage of my remarks is as follows:
Is there a long list of offences of different kinds? If so, what sort of offences have they

in mind? If there is nothing much beyond the two cases of murder, it seems to me that there is something to be said for the argument that the Act shall come into force from the date of the passing of the Bill except in respect of more serious offences." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1941; cols. 1324-5, Vol. 371.]

Mr. Silverman: It is perfectly true that my hon. Friend said that. But what the Committee were then discussing was whether my hon. Friend's proposal should be accepted by the Government or not; and the speech of the Attorney-General was a speech giving reasons why my hon. Friend's proposal should be rejected, and the Government's proposal accepted. It was that speech which my hon. Friend said had put forward reasons in a way which seemed to him entirely convincing. They did not entirely convince us; they did not entirely convince the hon. Member himself, on reflection; they did not entirely convince the seamen in their unions, who were to be affected; and it is clear to-day that they did not entirely convince the Government themselves. I would like to make a point that is not a purely personal one. I entirely sympathise with, and would endorse, the view that has been expressed already. I do not want to repeat that, but to add something to it. What has happened here proves that the Government have dealt with this legislation in an entirely haphazard, ill-advised and unconsidered way.
What was the Bill before the House? It was a Bill dealing with criminal legislation which was admitted on all sides to be unprecedented. It was something entirely new. We were dealing with special circumstances. One would have thought in those circumstances that, before bringing the Bill before the House, the Government would have considered whether the legislation which they were enacting was to be retrospective or not. It is not a small point in any kind of law, and it is certainly not a small point in criminal law. When the Government decided to have a Bill of this kind they ought to have had present in their minds in those deliberations the question, "Shall we make it retrospective or not?" As I understood the speech of the Undersecretary when he moved the Amendment that was on the Order Paper last time, he said that they had, in fact, considered it, and that the question of whether the legislation should be retrospective or not was


always present in their minds. It was not a new point and something that they had just thought of; they had considered it. Ultimately they admitted that this particular point of retrospective legislation had not been discussed with foreign seamen but that they had discussed it themselves.
When they presented the Bill on Second Reading they were of opinion that Clause 2 was to be retrospective for all purposes, and that is what they wanted, but in that Second Reading Debate or thereafter doubts occurred as to whether the Bill, as originally drafted, really would carry out the intention of making this criminal legislation retrospective for all purposes. In order to make certain that it should be retrospective for all purposes they moved the Amendment which was on the Order Paper last time. We then proceeded to discuss in Committee whether it ought to be retrospective or not, and the Government began to be convinced that their consultations or advice or whatever discussions they had had on this point had led them completely astray, and they said, "We will make it retrospective for all offences, but only for 12 months."
In response to further questions they said, "We will still make it retrospective for all purposes but only for six months." It was impossible, they told us, to draw any distinction between one kind of offence and another. You are to have a six months' period of limitation for murder and a six months' period of limitation for being drunk and disorderly. The Attorney-General was good enough to offer some remarks. I did not know whether they were intended to be taunts or not. I rather thought that they read just a little like that. Some of us were not quite ready to accept the arguments he advanced as convincing, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) thought then that they were. We were not amenable to argument; it is only the hon. Member who was amenable to argument. But they were quite wrong in imagining that there was any method at all whereby you could distinguish between being guilty of murder and being drunk and disorderly, when it came to a limitation of the time for prosecuting in that offence. They carried that on a Division, and now on the very next Sitting Day after that Division we have an

Amendment entirely satisfactory in itself, but which concedes the whole principle which they condemned. Nobody complains of that, but we do most seriously complain about dealing with the criminal law in this country in that light-hearted, frivolous way. When my hon. Friend talks about the embarrassment of the Government, I do not think he has begun to consider what embarrassing the Government means. I think the Government would be far more embarrassed by a tame, uncritical acceptance of everything they did than by constructive criticism which, however belated, at last puts them on the right road and gives us the legislation everybody wants.

Mr. Mander: Such as mine.

Mr. Silverman: such as the hon. Member's. If the hon. Member had been alone in the Committee last Thursday, this point would never have been heard of at all. [Interruption.] I understand now that he means that he heard all the Debate except my own speech.

Mr. Speaker: There is a Standing Order against tedious repetition.

Mr. Silverman: There may be, and I hope not to offend against any Standing Orders. All I am pointing out to the hon. Member is that he did say in an interjection that he was intervening in the Debate only in order to support the Government. We understand now that he thought the Government were wrong and that he accuses people who tell the Government they were wrong, when they were wrong, of being embarrassing. He thinks it helpful, thinking the Government wrong, to tell them that he is convinced by them and support them in the Division. That is not my conception of the matter. I think we who persisted in the Debate last Thursday and persisted in a Division rendered greater service than those who followed the Government tamely into the Division Lobby against us.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to clear the matter up and give some consolation to those who voted with the Government last time. When this Bill was printed it was questionable in some people's minds whether Clauses 2 and 4 had a restrospective effect or not —a retrospective effect in creating new


crimes in the case of Clause 4 and in the case of Clause 2 a retrospective effect in allowing crimes committed before these courts which are to be set up to be tried in courts which had only been set up subsequent to the committing of the crime. That being so, the Government put on the Order Paper Amendments to make it clear that Clause 4, a Clause which did create a new crime, shall not be retrospective. Similarly, they put down an Amendment to make Clause 2, as to venue, retrospective. The Government amendment was withdrawn. What we were voting on then was to leave Clause 2, as drafted, or to insert words to make it clear. I, and those who voted with me, voted to insert the words:
not being acts or omissions committed more than six months before the passing of this Act.
Those who voted to insert those words were limiting the effect of a doubtful provision in the Bill, and those who voted against it were leaving it either retrospective or not. It is not merely a most ingenious argument as my hon. Friend who interrupts says it is something which we were, in fact, all doing. I would prefer to be one of those voting in the Lobby to limit the provisions of that doubtful Clause than to be one of those who pat themselves on the back and say that they think they are the only righteous ones.

Mr. Bevan: Why is it in this matter, which involves so many complicated matters of law, that the defence is again left to the lay Members on the Front Bench?

Colonel Llewellin: Not so lay, some of us, although not quite such distinguished lawyers. I think we have settled that matter. We took a step on the last occasion, and we have now gone a step further. Having cleared up that matter, I want to clear up another point. We were not pressed by the National Union of Seamen or by the Allied seamen. It was rightly or wrongly—and I think rightly—on the initiative of the Ministry which I represent that, after the discussions in Committee—and we were asked a number of times by the hon. Member opposite whether we had done so—we consulted the National Union of Seamen, and we got them to consult, on our behalf, the international federation which is dealing with these matters. Ought we to be

blamed for doing that? The points were raised by hon. Members, we had time before the Report stage to do something further, and we took the initiative from the Ministry. Now it seems that someone is blaming us and saying that there is pressure from outside. I believe it is right, if we can, to carry these seamen with us. They are doing wonderful work on our ships in the high seas. If I were asked to apologise for having consulted them, I would not do so. We consulted them, they said that they would prefer the Amendment to be put in, and I ask the House, having persuaded the Government and the Government having confirmed that the seamen wanted the Amendment, and the, Government having prepared and moved it, to give us the Amendment and, very shortly the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 42, at the end, insert:
Provided that the Maritime Courts of any Power shall not have jurisdiction to try any person for any act or omission committed before the date of the passing of this Act except an act or omission committed at any time not more than six months before that date and constituting an offence against some law of that Power in force at that time other than the merchant shipping law and mercantile marine conscription law thereof." — [Mr. Peake.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Shinwell: It was indicated at an earlier stage that I might be able on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill to raise a point which I regard as one of substance. I placed on the Order Paper a proposed new Clause which I learned was out of order, and, of course, I accepted the Ruling of the Chair. The point I want to put is a very short one. There is in this country, as is known, a National Maritime Board which deals with all questions of wages and working conditions. There has been established also since the beginning of the war an international federation of foreign seamen's unions. It is called the International Federation of Seamen's Unions. The Dutch, Norwegian, Greek and the others are represented through their own organisations on that Federation, and they deal with wages and conditions of Allied seamen. All that I am asking for is an assurance from the Government that they


will make representations to the Allied Governments, who are concerned in this matter, with a view to co-ordinating the activities of these associated bodies, dealing with wages and conditions, with the decisions of the National Maritime Board. I am not proposing that there should be established an Allied Maritime Board; I withdraw that proposal. 1 want to be sure that the National Maritime Board, representing British shipowners, shall be fully informed of the decisions and negotiations preceding decisions which affect Allied seamen, so that there may be effective liaison and effective functioning of both bodies. It would be invidious if decisions affecting seamen, as regards wages and conditions, were reached by the foreign seamen's negotiating organisations which were not similar, having regard to all the known factors, to the decisions reached by the National Maritime Board. The wages and decisions should be as uniform as possible. Although there may be variations which apply to the different countries—and it is desirable to continue these variations where they are helpful—we are anxious to avoid any depreciation of conditions appertaining to British seamen. That is a point I wish to put to the Government.

Mr. Mander: There are one or two points I should like to raise on the Third Reading of this Measure. The first is with reference to the Allied appeal courts referred to in Clause 2, Sub-section (4). It is stated there that certain of the Allies have these courts. I should be glad if the Minister would say which of the Allies have these courts. During the Debate, last Thursday, I asked for and was given information as to which Allies were to be given these maritime courts. I was given a list which excluded Free France. I ask the Government whether they will not reconsider that decision, in view of the fact that it is now shown clearly that the Vichy Government is a treacherous Government, working inside the Axis organisation, and hostile to the interests of this country all over the world where they are of any influence. I ask the Government whether they will not reconsider the possibility of giving proper recognition to the Association of Free Frenchmen, under General de Gaulle, and whether it would not be right to have done altogether with the traitors of Vichy, and establish maritime

courts for those who really represent Free France, and so extend the number of countries that can be brought within the category of this Bill.

Mr. David Adams: I only want to augment and emphasise the appeal made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) with respect to the operations of the—

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact the hon. Member for Seaham—I gave him a good deal of latitude—was discussing something which had already been ruled out of Order during the Committee stage. His remarks were outside the scope of the Bill, and I cannot allow the matter to be further discussed.

Mr. Adams: All I intended to do was to make a supplementary appeal.

Colonel Llewellin: In view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, it is for me to reply only to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). In regard to the remarks he made about General de Gaulle, this Bill will not, of course, apply to any Power which has not got the ships or seamen to place at our disposal. No doubt if a number of Free French merchant sailors come over here, and we had some ships in which they could serve, we would reconsider their positions, but for the moment it is no good saying that the provisions of this Bill will apply in a case in which there is no one to whom it can be applied. The other point is that the Allied Governments are recognised Governments and there is some different position, I am told, in International Law with regard to the Free French Government. But I am now getting into foreign affairs questions, on which I am not competent to speak. I shall have to let my hon. Friend know about the appeal courts. We have not a list at the moment.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.